JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. - This writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 2.9.1968 and 9-8-1970 as well as the order of the State Government dated 7-5-1971. The main ground on which the writ petition was filed was that the order of allotment dated 3-5-1968 being in respects of a part of a part of the premises in dispute could not be made in favour of Sri Prabodh Gaur. respondent No. 4, without taking the consent of the landlady as required by rule 7 of the hulas framed under the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act. Admittedly no such consent was taken. The dispute only was as to whether the portion allotted to respondent No. 4 was part of the premises in occupation of the petitioner. After perusal of the papers on the record we are satisfied that the portion allotted to Sri Prabodh Gaur, respondent No. 4, was part of the premises in occupation of the petitioner. This was not a separate unit. This fact has now been conceded by Sri Prabodh Gaur, respondent No. 4, who appeared before us at the hearing of the writ petition. It may, however, further be noted that the writ petition was originally filed by Miss G. M. Gomes but the premises has now been purchased by Dr. Nandlal Tahilani, who has been impleaded as petitioner No. 2. Accordingly the order of allotment dated 3-5-1968 made in favour of Sri Prabodh Gaur was illegal and is liable to he set aside, and the proceedings taken thereafter under section 7-A of the Act are also liable to be quashed. 2. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The Orders of the three authorities mentioned above and the order of allotment dated 3-5-1968 are quashed, There will be no order as to costs.