JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises under the following circumstances. 2. Shahid Najeeb, opposite party No. 4, is the owner of quarter No. A-7 Ramnath Colony, Rampur. It was in the tenancy of one Devendra Singh, Assistant Engineer Hydel. On his transfer the quarter fell vacated and on 24.4.1976 one Satyapal Jolli moved an application for its allotment. Ajai Man Singh, the present petitioner, also applied for allotment. As usual the Rent Control Inspector was required to inspect the quarter and give his report. On 27.4.76 he reported that the previous tenant had vacated on 24.4.1976. The vacancy was notified on 30.4.76. On 21.6.1976 the landlord-opposite party No. 4 moved an application under section 17 read with rule 10(7) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 and the rules framed thereunder alleging that the quarter was not allotted within 21 days from the notification of vacancy and so he would like to nominate Imtiazul Rehman Khan, opposite party No. 3 as a tenant and the quarter be allotted to him. On 20.7.1976 the District Supply Officer rejected the landlord's application and allotted the quarter to the present petitioner. Imtiazul Rehman Khan filed a revision against the said order and the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the District Supply Officer had given no reason why allotment order was not passed within 21 days of the notification of the vacancy. He had not even given any reason why the nomination made by the landlord was ignored. He, therefore, set aside the allotment order passed in favour of the petitioner and allotted it to Imtiazul Rehman Khan and directed possession to be delivered to him. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides and have given my anxious consideration to the whole matter. These is no controversy that the pervious tenant vacated the disputed quarter on 24.4.76 and the vacancy was notified on 30.4.76. There is also no contest that allotment order by the District Supply Officer was passed on 20.7.1976. The only point that has arisen for consideration is whether the nomination made by the landlord by means of his application dated 21.6.1976 was valid and could be given effect to. In this connection it will be proper to refer certain provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. The only point that has arisen for consideration is whether the nomination made by the landlord by means of his application dated 21.6.1976 was valid and could be given effect to. In this connection it will be proper to refer certain provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. Section 15(1) states : "Every landlord shall, on a building falling vacant by ceasing to occupy it or by the tenant vacating it or by release from possession 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 vacancy." This section obviously places an obligation on the landlord to intimate vacancy in writing to the District Magistrate positively within seven days after the occurrence of such vacancy. It is needless to say that contravention of this provision in punishable under section 31 of the Act. Section 17 relates to the conditions of making allotment order. It states : "Where 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 reasons to be recorded, he allots it to any other person within ten days from the receipt of intimation of such nomination,". Rule 10(7) framed under the Act says that the power of the District Magistrate under section 17 (1) to disregard a nomination by the landlord in the event of the District Magistrate's failure to make the allotment order within twenty one days from the date of receipt of intimation of vacancy or expected vacancy of building shall be exercised very sparingly and only when for a public purpose of an urgent nature the District Magistrate considers it necessary so to do. 4. 4. The aforesaid provisions make it abundantly clear that the landlord is bound to intimate vacancy under section 15(l) within seven days of the occurrence of such vacancy. If this intimation is given as prescribed by law and no allotment order is passed within twenty one days from the date of receipt of such intimation the landlord is entitled to nominate a person to whom the premises may be allotted. In the instant case no intimation under section 15(l) appears to have been given. In para 13 of the counter affidavit it is no doubt alleged that intimation of vacancy under section 15(1) was given but it has been denied by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit. No document exists on the record to show on which date the intimation was given nor the District Supply Officer or the Additional District Judge has given any date on which this intimation as required by section 15(1) of the Act, may have been given. It is true that on 21.6.1976 the landlord had given an application nominating Imtiazul Rehman Khan as the person in whose favour allotment order should be passed but it was an application under section 17 read with rule 10(7). The vacancy had taken place on 24.4.76 and the intimation under section 15(l) should have been given within seven days therefrom. Obviously the application dated 21.6.76 could not be treated as an intimation under section 15(1) of the Act. The position as it emerges is that no intimation of vacancy appears to have been given by the landlord to the District Magistrate within seven days from 24.4.76. Therefore. he was not entitled to nominate any person as a tenant under section 17. 1 am fortified in this view of the case of Jiwan Singh v. Rajendra Prasad, 1975 A.L.R. 1,' in which rule 4 framed under the U.P. Act. III of 1947 came for consideration. That rule was analogous to section 17 of the present Act. In that case also it was held that a land- lord is obliged to give notice to the District Magistrate of the vacancy within seven days after the accommodation became vacant and rule 4 can come into play only on the fulfilment of that obligation by the landlord. Under section 17(i)(a) the new Act. In that case also it was held that a land- lord is obliged to give notice to the District Magistrate of the vacancy within seven days after the accommodation became vacant and rule 4 can come into play only on the fulfilment of that obligation by the landlord. Under section 17(i)(a) the new Act. The position being the same and the landlord having given no intimation of vacancy under section 15(1) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972, he was not competent to claim the benefit of section 17. The learned District Judge 'committed manifest error of law when instead of the intimation of vacancy required to be given by the landlord, he banked on the intimation given by a third party. 5. For all these reasons the order passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Rampur, is not sustainable. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the First Additional District Judge, Rampur, on 28.8.1976 is quashed. Costs on parties.