JUDGMENT Hon'ble D.N. Jha, J. - This writ petition originally had been filed by Syed Haider Ali under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the quashing of the order of allotment dated 2-5-1968, and orders dated 11-11-1968 and 29-11-1961, contained in Annexure 1, 2 and 3 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Rae Bareily and the State of Uttar Pradesh. During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner had died and his legal representatives were brought on the record who thereafter pursued the said writ petition. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner Is the owner of ?rd share of shop Mo. 1142 bearing municipal number 145. This share was contested by Sarfraz Husain opposite party No. 3 who is also now dead and is represented by his legal representatives. The matter ultimately was decided in a separate suit and it is now not in dispute that Haider Ali and ?rd share in the shop in question. This shop bad not been leased out and when it was about to be allotted in the year 1966 the petitioner had submitted his objection to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer who after considering the same had rejected the application for allotment on the ground that the shop was not vacant. It is asserted that surreptitiously Sarfriz Husain after reporting that the shop was vacant managed to get the allotment in favour of opposite party No. 4 Abdul Gaffer Khan. This allotment order is dated 27-5-1968 and its certified copy is Annexure receipt of information the petitioner submitted an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Rae Bareii on 1-6-1968 for cancellation of the allotment order. It is stated that no hearing took place and the application remained penning. Thereafter the petitioner learnt through an information received from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that his application had been rejected vide order dated 11-11-1968 Certified copy of this order is Annexure-2. The petitioner had represented before the state Government opposite party No. 4 under section 7-F for cancellation of the said order, but that too was rejected vide order dated 29-1-1968 by opposite party No. 1. The petitioner had represented before the state Government opposite party No. 4 under section 7-F for cancellation of the said order, but that too was rejected vide order dated 29-1-1968 by opposite party No. 1. Certified copy of tats order is Annexure 3, it is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come up before this Court by meats of the present petition to question the respective orders including tho allotment order mentioned above. 3. The petition has been contested on behalf of opposite party No. 4 Abdul Gaffer Khan. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of other opposite parties. It is stated by me allottee that he had moved an application for the allotment of the shop which was in occupation of opposite party No. 3 and vide allotment order dated 27-5-1968 he was allotted the said shop and he also received the possession of the same and is in peaceful occupation of the chop. He admitted that information had been received with respect to the objection filed by the petitioner and in pursuance of the same he lead appeared before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The copy of the notice is Annexure A-l. The possession was obtained from Sarfraz Husain by the allottee on 1-6-1968. It is asserted that the allotment order is legal and cannot be assailed on any of the grounds put forth any the petitioner in the writ petition. Opposite party No. 3 Sartraz Husain deposed that he himself was occupying the shop and carrying on business of general merchant and when the shop was allotted to opposite party No. 4 he delivered the possession to him. It is asserted that he never intended to damage the interest of the petitioner. It is denied that the previous application for allotment was rejected on the basis of the objection raised by the petitioner. He has filed the copy of the order along with the counter affidavit. He admits that the shop was allotted by his formal consent. In short an effort his been made to support the impugned orders passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the State Government to be legal, just and proper. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is conceded that ?rd share in the shop belonging to the petitioner has not been demarcated nor defined. In short an effort his been made to support the impugned orders passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the State Government to be legal, just and proper. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is conceded that ?rd share in the shop belonging to the petitioner has not been demarcated nor defined. There is no dispute that the petitioner has ?rd share in the shop, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner Vehemently that since he was the lawful owner of the one-third share in the shop his consent was necessary before delivery of possession. He argued that by virtue of allotment order itself the allottee could not become entitled to occupy the accommodation. In support of his contention be placed reliance on Krishna Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1962 A.L.J. 426. In the case it is observed at page 431 : "The State Government could allot an accommodation to a person, if by virtue of allotment order itself, the allottee could become entitled to occupy the accommodation. That is not so in the case of an order which may be issued under sub-section (2) of section 7. All what the Distract Magistrate, and may be even the State Government under section 7-F could direct was that the landlord shall let out the accommodation to a particular person or not to let out an accommodation to him." 5. In my opinion this case is not of any help to the petitioner as his one-third portion in the shop in dispute as not defined. On the basis of one-third share the petitioner has not till date filed any suit for either demarcation of a share in the shop or for possession of the same by a competent court. In the circumstances he is only entitled to l/3rd share in the rent. In the instant case the possession of the shop has already been obtained by the allottee Abdul Gbaffar Khan, opposite party No. 4. It may be that the possession of the entire shop was illegality handed over by Syed Sarfraz Husain to the allottee but, that in my opinion cantol adversely affect the allotment order. In the instant case the possession of the shop has already been obtained by the allottee Abdul Gbaffar Khan, opposite party No. 4. It may be that the possession of the entire shop was illegality handed over by Syed Sarfraz Husain to the allottee but, that in my opinion cantol adversely affect the allotment order. It is true that mere fact that the person is in possession of certain-immovable property will not entitle him to grant a lease of the same when he was got otherwise entitled to do so and further a tenant inducted by such a person can be evicted by the true owner without notice. The proposition of law is not in dispute. The question is that can the allotment order in the present proceeding be quashed on the basis of the averments and the legal questions posed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In my opinion the lease and the possession of the shop handed over by Sarfraz Husain to the allottee will hold good at least as against ?rd share of Sarfraz Husain if not in respect of ?rd share as asserted by the petitioner. For that it is always open to the petitioner to seek his remedy in a court of law firstly to get ?rd share in the shop demarcated and then to obtain possession over the same. On giving my anxious consideration to the entire set or argument placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner I do not think that in the present proceedings he is entitled to get relief prayed for getting the allotment order quashed or getting the order of the State Government bet aside as in my opinion there is no manifest or legal error in these orders. I do not think it proper to interfere after lapse of such a long time with the impugned orders as apparently there is no error much less a substantial error. 6. The result is that the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. I, however, make no order as to costs.