JUDGMENT : K.N. Singh, J. This petition is directed against the order of the Distt. Supply Officer, Rampur, allotting the premises in question to Jalil Ahmad Khan as well as against the order of the 1st Additional District Judge, Rampur, dismissing the revision and upholding the order of allotment. 2. The dispute relates to a shop situate at Bazar Nasar Ullah Khan in the city of Rampur. Admittedly, the shop is one of the five shops which is waqf property of a Mosque of which Idris Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate, is the Mutwalli. The shop in dispute was in the tenancy of one Rahat Jan. He died somewhere in September 1975. After his death Irfan Ahmad, the Petitioner, occupied the shop with the consent of the Mutwalli on payment of Rs. 25/- as rent without obtaining any order of allotment in January 1976. One Jalil Ahmad Khan made an application before the District Supply Officer, Rampur, who was exercising the powers of the District Magistrate under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) for the allotment of the shop in question. The Rent Control Inspector under the orders of the District Supply Officer made inspection and submitted his report to the effect that Irfan Ahmad was in occupation of the shop in question and was carrying on his business with the consent of the landlord. The District Supply Officer thereupon invited objections from the landlord and Irfan Ahmad, the Petitioner. Both of them filed objections and claimed that the shop in question was newly constructed and it was not subject to the province of the Act and, further since Irfan Ahmad was tenant in occupation of the shop with the consent of the landlord, there was no vacancy and no allotment order could be made. Jalil Ahmad Khan, the prospective allottee contested the claim of the landlord and Irfan Ahmad. After holding an enquiry the District Supply Officer by his order dated 14-7-1976 rejected the contention of the landlord as well as that of the Petitioner and allotted the shop in question to Jalil Ahmad Khan. Irfan Ahmad and the landlord both preferred revision applications u/s 18 of the Act before the District Judge, Rampur. The revisions were dismissed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Rampur by his order dated 19-8-1976 and the allotment order was held valid. Irfan Ahmad and the landlord both preferred revision applications u/s 18 of the Act before the District Judge, Rampur. The revisions were dismissed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Rampur by his order dated 19-8-1976 and the allotment order was held valid. Aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the District Supply Officer as well as that of the Ist Additional District Judge, Rampur. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that since the Petitioner was in occupation of the shop in question with the consent of the landlord on 5th July 1976, namely the date on which U.P. Act No. 28 of 1976 (U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction (Amendment) Act 1976) was enforced his occupation stood regularised and for the purposes of the Act he was a tenant of the shop u/s 14 of the Act and as such there was no vacancy consequently, the District Supply Officer had no jurisdiction to issue any allotment order in favour of Jalil Ahmad Khan. 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, urged that since proceedings for the eviction of the Petitioner were pending against him u/s 16 of the Act on 5th July 1976, the Petitioner's occupation was not regularised and he could not be held to be the tenant of the shop in question u/s 14 of the Act. The Act was amended by the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction (Amendment) Act 1976 (U.P. Act 28 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act). The Amending Act received the assent of the President on 1st July 1976 and it was published in U.P. Extraordinary Gazette dated July 5, 1976, the date on which it came into force. The Amending Act received the assent of the President on 1st July 1976 and it was published in U.P. Extraordinary Gazette dated July 5, 1976, the date on which it came into force. After its amendment Section 14 is in the following terms: Regularisation of occupation of existing tenants: Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any licensee (within the meaning of Section 2A) or a tenant in occupation of a building with the consent of the landlord immediately before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976, not being a person against whom any suit or proceeding for eviction is pending before any court or authority on the date of such commencement shall be deemed to be an authorised licensee or tenant of such building. The above provision was enacted by the Legislature to grant relief to the licensees and to regularise the occupation of the licensees and existing tenants who may have been in possession of the premises with the consent of the landlord but without any allotment order in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 14 lays down that a person who may be in occupation of the building with the consent of the landlord as a tenant or as a licensee before the commencement of the Amending Act 1976, i.e. before the 5th July. 1976 shall be deemed to be a licensee or tenant of such building but no such person shall get this benefit if any suit or proceeding for his eviction was pending before any court or authority on the date of the commencement of the Amending Act 1976. Thus, the benefit granted to the licensees or the tenants who may be occupying the building with the consent of the landlord was not available to those persons against whom a suit or proceeding for their eviction was pending on 5th July, 1976. 5. There is no dispute that the Petitioner occupied the shop in question and that he had been paying rent to the landlord at the rate of Rs. 5. There is no dispute that the Petitioner occupied the shop in question and that he had been paying rent to the landlord at the rate of Rs. 25/- p.m. There is no dispute that on the 5th July 1976, namely on the date of the commencement of the Amending Act 1976 the Petitioner was in occupation of the shop in question with the consent of the landlord and he was a tenant of the shop. The material question then arises as to whether any suit or proceeding for his eviction was pending against the Petitioner before any court or authority on 5th July 1976. The Additional District Judge has held that since the District Supply Officer had issued notice to the Petitioner and the landlord about the allotment proceedings and since both of them had filed objections and since the District Supply Officer exercising the powers of the District Magistrate under the Act had the authority to eject the unauthorised occupant of a building, on the date of the commencement of the Amending Act 1976, i.e. 5th July 1976, therefore proceedings for the eviction of the Petitioner was pending before the District Supply Officer. The Additional District Judge failed to note the distinction between the allotment proceedings and the proceedings for the eviction of a person. Whenever there is a vacancy in respect of a building it is the duty of the landlord to intimate the District Magistrate of the vacancy u/s 15 of the Act. The District Magistrate has power to allot any building which has fallen vacant or is likely to fall vacant to an applicant or to release whole or in part of the building to the landlord u/s 16 of the Act. Section 16(1) confers powers on the District Magistrate to allot the building to an applicant or to release whole or part of the building to the landlord. Sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Amending Act requires the matters mentioned therein to be specified in the allotment order. Section 16(1) confers powers on the District Magistrate to allot the building to an applicant or to release whole or part of the building to the landlord. Sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Amending Act requires the matters mentioned therein to be specified in the allotment order. Sub-section (4) of Section 16, however, lays down that where the allottee or the landlord in whose favour the building is allotted or released has not been able to get possession of the building the District Magistrate may on an application of the allottee or the landlord by order evict or cause to be evicted any person named in the order as well as every other person claiming under him or found in occupation. In order to give effect to his order the District Magistrate has further been empowered to use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary to put the allottee or the landlord in possession of the building. The stage for exercising powers under Sub-section (4) of Section 16 of the Act arises only when an order allotting the building to an applicant or releasing the building to the landlord is passed by the District Magistrate u/s 16(1) of the Act. No proceedings under Sub-section (4) of Section 16 of the Act are permissible to be taken by the District Magistrate unless the allotment order or the release order is issued. Sub-section (5) of Section 16 provides an opportunity to the person who may be claiming to be lawful occupant of a building to make representation to the District Magistrate that the order of allotment or release was not passed in accordance with Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act. The District Magistrate if satisfied on the cause shown by the occupant, is empowered to recall order of allotment or release of the building. If the District Magistrate recalls his order of allotment or release, he is empowered under Sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the Act to put back the person into possession who may have been evicted in proceedings under Sub-section (4) of Section 16 of the Act. The scheme contained in Section 16 clearly maintains a distinction between allotment and release proceedings and the proceedings for eviction of an unauthorised occupant. The scheme contained in Section 16 clearly maintains a distinction between allotment and release proceedings and the proceedings for eviction of an unauthorised occupant. When the proceedings are taken for allotment or release of a building in accordance with Section 16(1) and (2) of the Act, no proceedings for eviction of any unauthorised person could be pending. The stage for taking proceedings for eviction of an unauthorised person would arise only after the issue of the order of allotment or release of a building, as eviction proceedings are necessary only to give effect to the said orders u/s 16(4) of the Act. 6. In the instant case, no order of allotment as contemplated by Section 16(1) of the Act had been issued in favour of Jalil Ahmad Khan and no proceedings as contemplated by Section 16(4) of the Act, were pending for the Petitioner's eviction on or before July 5, 1976. In fact the allotment order in favour of Jalil Ahmad Khan was itself passed on 14-7-1976, namely after the commencement of the Amending Act 1976. In the circumstances no stage, therefore, arose on 5-7-1976 for taking proceedings u/s 16(4) of the Act for the Petitioner's eviction and for giving effect to the allotment order dated 14-7-1976. In this view the Petitioner was entitled to the protection of Section 14 of the Act as he was in occupation of the shop in question as tenant with the consent of the landlord on 5th July 1976 the date of the commencement of the Amending Act 1976. 7. In view of the above discussion, the Petitioner's occupation of the shop in question stood regularised u/s 14 of the Amending Act and as such there was no vacancy of the shop in dispute. The District Supply Officer had no jurisdiction to issue the allotment order in regard to the shop in question. 8. In the result, I allow the petition and quash the impugned orders. The Petitioner is entitled to his costs.