JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of allotment proceedings under section 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act). 2. Rameshwar Dayal, respondent No. 3, is the owner of shop No. 7/506/3 Bazar Dinanath, Saharanpur. One Sri Pal Jain was its tenant. He vacated it sometimes in the end of December, 1973. On 31-12-1973 Narendra Kumar Gupta, respondent No. 1, applied for its allotment. On 23-1-1974 the landlord gave an application to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer intimating that the shop had fallen vacant and that he shall have no objection if it was allotted to any one. It appears to have reached the office of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 24-1-1974. The Rent Inspector was directed to make an enquiry about vacancy. He gave his report on 20-1-1974 to the effect that the shop had really fallen vacant. On 30th January, 1974, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer notified vacancy. On 31-1-1974 the present petitioners moved an application for allotment offering to pay Rs. 50/- per month as rent though according to respondent No. 1 it was previously let out at Rs. 10/-per month only. On 11-2-1974 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer invited applications for allotment fixing 18-2-74 for orders. On this date before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer could pass any order he received a registered notice dated 16-2-1974 sent by the landlord intimating that the shop in question be allotted to his nominees, namely, the present petitioners. He claimed this right on the ground that the shop had fallen vacant by the end of December, 1973, yet it was not allotted till 24-1-1974 as required by section 17 of the Act. On 21-2-1974 Suresh Chandra Gupta, opposite party No. 2 also moved an application for its allotment. After hearing the parties the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the shop to Narendra Kumar Gupta on 16-3-74 considering his need to be paramount and by applying the principle of first-come first serve. 3. Both the landlord and the present petitioners filed appeals Nos. 96 and 101 of 1974. After hearing the parties the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the shop to Narendra Kumar Gupta on 16-3-74 considering his need to be paramount and by applying the principle of first-come first serve. 3. Both the landlord and the present petitioners filed appeals Nos. 96 and 101 of 1974. They were rejected by the learned District Judge, interalia, on the grounds that the benefit of section 17 of the Act could not be claimed since the requirements of section 15 were not fulfilled. He also held that the allotment in favour of Narendra Kumar was according to law. Now the nominees alone have filed this writ petition. It may be stated that Narendra Kumar Gupta, opposite party No. 1 is alleged to have vacated the shop during the pendency of this writ petition and an application for its allotment was moved by Surendra Chandra Seth, opposite party No. 8 but the proceedings have been stayed by this court. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer having failed to allot the shop to any one within 21 days from the date of receipt of intimation of vacancy had no option but to allot it to the nominees of the landlord as contemplated by section 17. The contention is not tenable because section 15 lays down : "Every landlord shall on a building falling vacant by his ceasing to occupy or by the tenant vacating it or by release from requisition or in any other manner whatsoever, give notice of the vacancy in writing to the District Magistrate not later than seven days after the occurrence of such vacancy and such notice may at the option of the landlord be given before the occurrence of the vacancy." sub-section (2) of this Section says : "Every tenant so vacating a building shall give notice here of in writing to the District Magistrate and also to the landlord not less than fifteen days before the vacancy." 5. In the instant case there is no material on the record to warrant that the outgoing tenant had given any notice to the District Magistrate or to be landlord that he was going to vacate the shop. However, it could not exonerate the landlord of his responsibility to give intimation of vacancy or expected vacancy in the manner prescribed by section 15. However, it could not exonerate the landlord of his responsibility to give intimation of vacancy or expected vacancy in the manner prescribed by section 15. This provision makes it abundantly clear that the landlord has to give notice of vacancy in writing not later than seven days after the occurrence of such vacancy. Failure to comply with this provision is punishable under section 31 of the Act. The intimation of vacancy is to be given in the manner prescribed in rule 9 framed under the Act. In the instant case the vacancy had admittedly taken place in the end of December 1973 and its intimation according to the landlord's own showing, was given on 23-1-1974 i.e. long after the expiry of seven days from the occurrence of vacancy. There is not an iota of material on the record to show that the landlord had no knowledge of vacancy upto 23-1-1974. He lives at the same place where the shop in question is situate. Therefore, he will be deemed to have knowledge of the fact as to when the previous tenant had vacated the shop and in view of section 15 of the Act be was bound to intimate vacancy positively within seven days but be did not do so. Section 17 lays down : "Whether the District Magistrate receives an intimation under sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the vacancy or expected vacancy of a building any allotment order in respect of that building shall be made and communicated to the landlord within twenty one days from the date of receipt of such intimation and where no such order is so made or communicated within the said period, the landlord may intimate to the District Magistrate the name of a person of his choice and there upon the District Magistrate shall allot the building in favour of the person so nominated unless for special and adequate reason to be recorded he allots it to any other person within ten days from the receipt of intimation of such nomination." The benefit of this provision can be claimed only when an intimation of vacancy is given in the manner prescribed in section 15. In the instant case no intimation or notice of vacancy was admittedly given within seven days of the occurrence of vacancy. Therefore, the benefit of section 17 could not be claimed. In the instant case no intimation or notice of vacancy was admittedly given within seven days of the occurrence of vacancy. Therefore, the benefit of section 17 could not be claimed. The letter dated 23-3-1974 could not be treated as a notice under section 15 of the Act because it was sent after the expiration of seven days. It did not contain the information required by rule 9 with the result that the Prescribed Authority who could have proceeded to allot the shop on the basis of intimation of vacancy had to resort to rule 8 for determination of vacancy and it took time. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vacancy was notified on or about 28/30-1-74, and the period of 21 days should be calculated from it carries no force. Section 17 itself makes it clear that the period of 21 days will run from the date of receipt of intimation under section 15 (1). As stated above, the intimation under section 15 (1) by the landlord is to be given not later than seven days after the occurrence of vacancy. For all these reasons the learned District Judge was right in holding that the landlord had no right to nominate his tenants and the latter were not entitled to have the shop allotted on its basis. 6. It is needless to go into the merit of the question whether the allotment in favour of opposite party No. 1 on the basis of 'First-come first-serve' was right or not because he has already vacated the shop and it has again fallen vacant. 7. For all these reasons the writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. The petitioners will bear their own costs of this petition.