JUDGMENT : Hari Swarup, J. This petition has been filed against the order of the Prescribed Authority allotting the building to opposite party No. 3 u/s 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, and against the order passed in revision by the District Judge u/s 18 of the Act. The Petitioner No. 1 had applied for allotment after obtaining the consent of the landlord who is Petitioner No. 2, thereafter opposite party No. 3 also made an application for allotment. The Prescribed Authority held that the need of opposite party No. 3 was greater than the need of Petitioner No. 1 whom he took as already occupying accommodation at 11, Shahnajaf Road, Lucknow. About opposite party No. 3 the Prescribed Authority mentioned that during arguments he had urged that he was living with a relation who wanted him to go away. With these observations, the allotment order was made in favour of opposite party No. 3. 2. Three revisions were preferred before the District Judge. One was filed by the outgoing tenant on the allegation that he was stilt in possession and there was no vacancy. The other was filed by the landlord as his nominee had not been allotted the accommodation. The third was filed by the Petitioner No. 1 who was claiming the allotment. The learned District Judge has dismissed all the three revisions. The outgoing tenant has not challenged the order. The landlord Petitioners No. 2 cannot be deemed to be an aggrieved person as no legal right of his can be deemed to be effected. The writ petition has, therefore, to be considered only on behalf of Petitioner No. 1. 3. The learned District Judge while dealing with the Petitioner's revision has only considered the omission in the application of both the parties, viz., Petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 3, in not mentioning the place of their residence on the date of the application in the column meant for that purpose. He held that both were equally guilty of concealing facts and, therefore, dismissed the revision. 4. The question before the District Judge was whether the Prescribed Authority had exercised the jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity and the revision could not have been dismissed merely on the ground that both the parties had concealed the fact regarding their addresses on the date of the application. 5. 4. The question before the District Judge was whether the Prescribed Authority had exercised the jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity and the revision could not have been dismissed merely on the ground that both the parties had concealed the fact regarding their addresses on the date of the application. 5. It is contended that Rule 11 prescribed that the principle of 'first come, first served' had to be followed and if that had been followed, the Petitioner No. 1 would have got the allotment in his favour. The Rule 11 is not of a mandatory character but is directory in its nature, which means that it has to be followed unless circumstances exist for not following the rule of preference contained in the Rule. Learned District Judge has not considered the effect of this Rule nor has the Prescribed Authority done so. 6. It is also alleged that the Petitioner No. 1 was not occupying any accommodation at 11, Shahnajaf Road and the mention thereof in the judgment of the Prescribed Authority was not based on any material on record. Similarly, it is alleged that the opposite party No. 3 had not been proved to be living with a relation who had wanted him to vacate the premises. 7. These are all matters which had to be decided by the learned District Judge before he could dismiss the revision. If there was no material and he had thought fit to remand the case, Section 18 gave him such a power. But the learned District Judge has really failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law in not considering whether the order of the Prescribed Authority suffered from any illegality or irregularity in procedure to render it liable to be set aside or was entitled to be confirmed. As the learned. District Judge has not considered the matter which he should have considered while deciding the revision and has passed the order on considerations which were not very relevant to the controversy, the order cannot be sustained. 8. Learned Counsel contended that a direction be issued to the District Judge to issue an interim order. It will not be appropriate to issue such direction as it is the jurisdiction of the District Judge to pass interim orders during the pendency of revisions. After the writ petition is allowed, the revisions will be deemed pending before the District Judge. Learned Counsel contended that a direction be issued to the District Judge to issue an interim order. It will not be appropriate to issue such direction as it is the jurisdiction of the District Judge to pass interim orders during the pendency of revisions. After the writ petition is allowed, the revisions will be deemed pending before the District Judge. 9. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned judgment of the District Judge is quashed and he is directed to re-register the revision at its original number and decide it according to law, after giving parties an opportunity of hearing.