Short Note : 1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for a suitable writ or order being issued for quashing the order passed by respondent No. 1-Authorised officer under section 39 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on 11-2-1976. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this petition are these :– The petitioner Kailashchandra S/o Tejpal is the owner of house No. 10, Morsali Gali, Indore. It was occupied by one Ramsewak S/o Kanhaiyalal as a tenant. The accommodation let out to Ramsewak consisted of four rooms on the ground floor as well 2S over the first floor. Ramsewak used his accommodation as a kitchen, store-room and dining room. This accommodation was vacated by Ramsewak sometime in April 1975 in accordance with a compromise decree passed in ejectment suit instituted by the petitioner. After Ramsewak vacated the accommodation, the rooms were partitioned and the four rooms occupied by Ramsewak were converted into six rooms and then let out by the petitioner to Harmohan Daulal, who continued to occupy the same as the petitioner's tenant till the present petition was filed on 21-2-1976. Held : It is not disputed that the accommodation in question was initially occupied by one Ramsewak for non-residential purposes i. e. for running a lodge where customers used to come and take food on payment to Ramsewak. The accommodation consisted of a couple of rooms on the ground floor as well as on the first floor. Ramsewak was examined by respondent No.1 in the enquiry held by him. A copy of the statement has been filed as Annexure B in which be stated that though his residence was in House No.8 but the accommodation in question was taken on rent by him on a monthly rent of Rs. 180 and was used by him as a Bhojnalalya i. e. a lodge. No other material has been placed on record by respondent No.1 to show that prior to the accommodation being vacated by Ramsewak, it was used only as a residential accommodation and not as a non-residential accommodation as alleged by the petitioner. 180 and was used by him as a Bhojnalalya i. e. a lodge. No other material has been placed on record by respondent No.1 to show that prior to the accommodation being vacated by Ramsewak, it was used only as a residential accommodation and not as a non-residential accommodation as alleged by the petitioner. It is also not disputed that though the accommodation which had fallen vacant consisted of couple of rooms on the ground floor as well as on the first floor the allotment order is only in respect of two rooms on the ground floor only and no allotment has been made so far as the rooms on the first floor are concerned. The question is as to whether the respondent No. 1 was justified in splitting up the tenancy in respect of the disputed accommodation as has been done in this case. In our opinion, such a splitting up of tenancy was not permitted either by the provisions of the Act or by the provisions of any other law in force. 3. The second and the more important question is as to whether any allotment order could be passed in the circumstances of the case. The petitioner had specifically averred in the petition that after Ramsewak had vacated the disputed accommodation, it was let out to one Harmohan Daulal (para 1 of the petition), who is still in occupation of the disputed accommodation. This averment made by the petitioner in para 1 of the petition has not been controverted by the respondents in their return. It, therefore, clearly shows that when the impugned orders (Annexure C and R/2) were passed by respondent No. 1 the accommodation was in occupation of Harmohan Daulal. AIR 1958 All 393 , relied on. Allotment order quashed. Petition allowed