JUDGMENT G.C. Mathur, J. - One Mrs. Lila Chester was the tenant of the accommodation No. 12-A, Katra Road, Allahabad. She died in May 1963. Some how the appellant and one Smt. H. Dayal got possession of the house. The landlord filed a suit for the eviction of the appellant and Mrs. Dayal. The suit was decreed and the decree for eviction was executed on December 2, 1967. Thereafter several persons applied for allotment of the house and by order dated March 29, 1968 the house was allotted in favour of respondent No. 1 Sant Lal Sonkar. Sometime after the allotment the appellant on July 22, 1909 applied for the cancellation of the allotment order. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by order dated January 21, 1970 cancelled the allotment. A representation made by Sant Lal Sonkar to the State Government under section 7-F of the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act 1947 was rejected on November 24, 1971 the house was allotted in favour of the appellant. Sant Lal Sonkar filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer cancelling his allotment and the order of the State Government maintaining that order. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition mainly on the ground that allotment order was cancelled on an irrelevant consideration. He accordingly set aside the order of the State Government as well as of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Against his judgment this appeal has been preferred. 2. The appellant's case is that the execution of the decree for eviction was a mere paper transaction and that he continued in possession of the house in spite of the execution. His further case is that he permitted Sonkar to come and live in the house and that Sonkar applied for allotment for the benefit of the appellant. The application for cancellation was based on the ground that Sonkar had played a fraud upon the appellant and got the allotment order in his own name though he had agreed with the appellant to file an application for allotment in favour of the appellant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer has not cancelled the allotment order on the ground of any fraud played by Sonkar on the appellant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer has not cancelled the allotment order on the ground of any fraud played by Sonkar on the appellant. The order is based solely on the ground that Sonkar failed to disclose in his application for allotment that he was "some what" related to the appellant. The State Government has also upheld the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on this very ground. The question which arises for consideration is whether the non-disclosure of his relationship with the appellant was suppression of material fact by Sonkar when he applied for allotment. We are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that the non-discloser of his relationship did not amount suppression of the material fact. There was no bar either in the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act or in the rules framed thereunder from allotting the premises in favour of the person who had been ordered by the Civil Court to be evicted. Of course if the fact had come to the notice of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer he may have in the exercise of his discretion not considered it proper to make the allotment in favour of the appellant. But we do not think that it was incumbent upon Sonkar to disclose his relationship which was by no means very close to the appellant, in his application for allotment. In any case there was no bar to the allotment in favour of Sri Sonkar even if he was related to the appellant, against whom a decree for eviction had been passed. He may repeat that there was no finding either by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer or by the State Government that Sonkar obtained the allotment for the benefit of the appellant. If Sri Sonkar applied for allotment in his own name or for his own benefit it was wholly unnecessary for him to disclose his relationship with the appellant. We, therefore, think that there was no suppression of any material fact by Sonkar in his application for allotment and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in cancelling the allotment order has done so on an wholly irrelevant ground. The order of the State Government is also based on the same wholly irrelevant ground. The learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in quashing both the orders. 3. The order of the State Government is also based on the same wholly irrelevant ground. The learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in quashing both the orders. 3. The appeal is without merits and is hereby dismissed with costs.