JUDGMENT Mahavir Singh, J. - The petitioner was an applicant for allotment of a shop No. 28/30, Kashmir Bazar Agra. In his application dated 16.4.1969 he had alleged that actually he alone was in possession of the shop in question for a number of years and so his possession be regularised. 2. An enquiry was held by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer through the Rent Control Inspector. He by his report dated 22.4.1969 found the applicant to be in possession as properietor of M/s. Pas & Company paying Rs. 60/- p.m. as rent but it was in the name of Liaqat Husain, the original tenant. On 25.4.69 an allotment order was passed by the District Supply Officer in favour of the applicant. 3. On 1.7.69 Hari Shanker Lal predecessor of the contesting respondents 4 to 8 moved an application for cancellation of the allotment order. He alleged that he was the owner of the premises in question and that Liaqat Hussain respondent No. 3 was in possession thereof as a tenant ; that Liaqat Husain informed that he was doing business under the name and style of M/s. Das & Company ; that he wanted him to vacate the premises. He continued to promise to do so but in the meanwhile the applicant got the shop allotted in his favour by concealing the facts ; that no opportunity was given to him (Landlord) to make an application for release or to prove his need and that even the name of the tenant was not mentioned in the application for allotment ; that all through the rent receipts was given in the name of the tenant who never had given intimation to him or to the landlord about the alleged vacancy and that actually he needed the accommodation for his own use. 4. The applicant contested the application, inter alia ; on the ground that it was not maintainable as the person aggrieved would be the old tenant who had not come forward. He denied that he had concealed facts in his application. 5. Liaqat Hussain respondent No. 3 also filed written statement contesting the case of the applicant and alleged that the order was bad. 6. The Prescribed Authority by order dated 10-10-72 rejected the application of the respondents. He denied that he had concealed facts in his application. 5. Liaqat Hussain respondent No. 3 also filed written statement contesting the case of the applicant and alleged that the order was bad. 6. The Prescribed Authority by order dated 10-10-72 rejected the application of the respondents. He held that the applicant was in possession of the premises in question for the last many years and the landlord respondent had full knowledge of the same. 7. Against the order, an appeal was filed by the respondent before the learned District Judge as by that time U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) (hereinafter called as the new Act) had come into force. Later due to the another Amendment Act No. 28 of 1976 the appeal was treated as a revision. The matter came up for hearing before the learned Addl. District Judge. He by his order dated 4.5.1977 allowed the revision and set aside the order of allotment and remanded the matter for a fresh enquiry after giving opportunity to the contesting respondents and the tenant. He held that no proper procedure was adopted for declaring the vacancy in as much as no notice was given either to the landlord or to the out-going tenant. 8. It is against this order that the applicant has come up before this court. He prays for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution be issued to quash the orders of the learned Additional District Judge. 9. It was first contended that no appeal or revision lay against the order of the Prescribed Authority in rejecting the application for cancellation of the allotment order. He had pointed out that there was no provision under the old Act No. III of 1947 for review of an order of allotment and, therefore, it could not be covered by Section 43(2)(b) of the new Act. He had pointed out that there was no provision under the old Act No. III of 1947 for review of an order of allotment and, therefore, it could not be covered by Section 43(2)(b) of the new Act. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, contends that the proceedings for review of allotment order passed under the old Act would be deemed to be arising under section 7 of the old Act under which the allotment order is passed and, therefore, it would be covered by section 43(2)(b) of the new Act and as such it could be decided in accordance with the provisions of section 16 of the New Act, and, therefore, an appeal and later a revision was maintainable. Reliance was placed on Niren Kumar v. District Judge, Pilibhit, AIR 1977 Allahabad 47. The contention of the respondent is really supported by the above mentioned case which applies to the facts of this case. I fully agree with the view taken in this case. The application for review can thus be said to be arising out of proceeding under section 7 of the old Act, and therefore, it could be disposed of in accordance with the provisions mentioned above. The revision was therefore, clearly maintainable. 10. The next contention raised was that even otherwise the validity of the order of the Prescribed Authority has to be judged with reference to the provisions of law applicable at the time when the allotment order was passed. At that time under the Old Act there was no provision for notice to the landlord and so the Rent Control and Eviction Officer could pats an allotment order without notice to him and as such he had not committed any illegality in passing the order of allotment. It is true that there was no provision under the old act for issue of notice to the landlord but in the circumstances of the case alleged by the applicant it was really necessary to issue notice to the landlord. The applicant alleged that actually he was the tenant and Liagat Husain was not the tenant, and that is why he wanted his possession to be regularised.. But this question could not be disposed of within notice to the landlord as well as to Liaqat Husain in whose name the tenancy was existing. The applicant alleged that actually he was the tenant and Liagat Husain was not the tenant, and that is why he wanted his possession to be regularised.. But this question could not be disposed of within notice to the landlord as well as to Liaqat Husain in whose name the tenancy was existing. The applicant himself admits that the rent receipts were being issued in the name of Liaqat Husain by the landlord and so without hearing the landlord and Liaqat Husain the case put forward by the applicant could not be properly disposed of. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the allotting authority had really committed gross error of procedure in making the allotment order without informing the parties concerned. 11. The learned counsel for the applicant then contends that in any case it was the tenant Liaqat Husain who was aggrieved by the order of allotment and so the landlord had no right to move an application for review. That contention also is not correct, A Landlord is very much interested in the matter. If the premises in question was declared vacated by the tenant the landlord may apply for release in his favour. The contesting respondent had alleged in their application for review that if the accommodation in question was deemed to be vacant he would really need the accommodation and from that point of view he is entitled to maintain the application. Under the present section 16(5) of the new Act a landlord has been given power to move an application for cancellation of allotment order if it cannot be passed in accordance with law, as has been held in Niren Kumar case (supra). Thus the learned Additional District Judge was right in setting aside the allotment order and remanding the case for deciding afresh. 12. In the result the petition has no force and it is dismissed with costs.