JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. - The Life Insurance Corporation of India is a statutory corporation having been established under section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. Under section 7 of the aforesaid Act, on the appointed day, nomely, the 1st of September, 1955, all the assets and liabilities appertaining to the controlled business of all the erstwhile insurance companies were transferred to and vested in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Bharat Insurance Company Limited was also one of the Insurance Companies which was taken by the Life Insurance Corporation under the aforesaid Act. As a result thereof, all the properties and buildings belonging to the Bharat Insurance Company Ltd. stood vested or transferred to the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Amongst others Bharat Insurance Company Limited owned a number of properties which were situated at Dehradun. This was commonaly known as 'Bharat Estate Buildings' at Dehradun. It is not disputed that these buildings were constructed after January 1951. Accordingly they were not coverd by the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. After the enforcement of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, a number of persons filed applications for allotment of the Bharat Estate Buildings 'New Cannaught Place' Dehradun, on the ground that the said building was vacant and, therefore, was available for allotment. Some of these applications were for Godown No. 12-A. 2. These applications were resisted by the Life Insurance Corporation of India on the ground that the Godown was in occupation of the Life Insurance Corporation itself and as there was no vacancy, the same was not open for allotment. Relevant allegations were made by it in paragraph 4 of the objection which was preferred on its behalf before the Rent Control and Eviction officer The same reads as under : "That Godown No. 12-A, was vacated on 1.6.72, and since then it is the possession and occupation of the applicant. The repairing and building material is stored therein, which is every time required for the repair and maintenance of the applicants aforementioned buildings." 3. Apart from the above ground, the Life Insurance Corporation took some other pleas on the basis of which it alleged that the application filed for the allotment of the Godown was liable to be rejected. 4. All these cases were taken up together by the Rent Control and Eviction officer. Apart from the above ground, the Life Insurance Corporation took some other pleas on the basis of which it alleged that the application filed for the allotment of the Godown was liable to be rejected. 4. All these cases were taken up together by the Rent Control and Eviction officer. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer deciding the objections raised on behalf of the Life Insurance Corporation against it by the order dated January 25, 1973 and found that the same had no substance. Aggrieved by the order the Life Insurance Corporation preferred appeals before the District Judge. The District Judge confirmed the orders of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and dismissed all the appeals. 5. One of these appeals admittedly was with respect to Godown No. 12-A. It, however, appears that neither the Prescribed Authority nor the District Judge considered the case of the Godown on merits. rejecting the contentions of the Life Insurance Corporation on other points, declared the Godown also to be vacant for allotment. As noted above, Godown No. 12-A, according to the allegations of the Life Insurance Corporation, was in its possession and occupation and the repairing and building materials were stored therein. Even if it is assumed that other grounds taken by the Life Insurance Corporation were rightly decided by the District Judge and the Prescribed Authority, they should have gone into the merits of the assertion of the Life Insurance Corporation and found whether the same was in its occupation on the date of the enforcement of this Act. If the Godown was in occupation of the Life Insurance Corporation for the purposes mentioned in paragraph 4 of the objection, the same was not vacant and, therefore, no action in respect of it could be taken under section 16 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 6. In the instant case, as none of the two authorities went into this controversy, the proper course appears to be to set aside the judgments of these two authorities in respect of this property and to direct the Prescribed Authority to decide as to whether the godown was in occupation of the Life Insurance Corporation for the purposes mentioned in paragraph 4 of the objection. As observed above, if the answer of this question is in favour of the Life Insurance Corporation, the question of its allotment or release would not arise. As observed above, if the answer of this question is in favour of the Life Insurance Corporation, the question of its allotment or release would not arise. It will be open to the Life Insurance Corporation to take such other grounds as well, as may be open to it. 7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and allowed. The order of the Prescribed Authority dated 25.1.1973 and that of the District Judge dated 7.8.1974, in respect of Godown No. 12-A are quashed. The Prescribed Authority is directed to decide the case afresh in the light of the observations made above. In the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs.