Short Note : 1. The accommodation in dispute was let out the petitioner sometime in the year 1960. On 13th July 1977, the Authorised Officer, Rent Control, Indore, issued a notice (annexure-D) stating that respondent No.3 (landlord) had informed the Authorised Officer that the petitioner had vacated the accommodation on 1st October 1976 and that one Ghanshyam Soni was occupying it without the consent of the landlord. It was also mentioned that the Authorised Officer had inspected the spot on 6th July 1977 and found that the accommodation was in possession of Ghanshyam Soni. The petitioner was called upon to appear on 16th July 1977 to show cause why the accommodation be not allotted to respondent No.4. On 23rd July 1977, the petitioner showed cause by stating that the accommodation was not vacated by him and that his employee Ghanshyam Soni was occupying the house and that his property was also lying in the said house. It was contended that the information conveyed by the landlord, respondent No.3, that the accommodation was vacant was false and made with a view to deprive the petitioner of the protection afforded by section 12 of the Act. On the same day, the Authorized Officer passed an order that as the petitioner had unlawfully delivered possession of the accommodation to another person without the consent of the landlord, the accommodation was allotted to respondent No.4. The petitioner has assailed this order mainly on the ground that the Authorized Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the order as the accommodation had not fallen vacant or was likely to fall vacant, which fact had to be found to confer jurisdiction on the Authorized Officer to pass an order of allotment under section 39 (2) of the Act. Held: The Authorized Officer has not found that the accommodation has fallen vacant or is likely to fall vacant. He has found that the petitioner, a tenant to whom the accommodation was let out by the landlord, has unlawfully delivered the possession of the accommodation to other person. Therefore, according to the Authorized Officer, the accommodation had not fallen vacant, but its possession was unlawfully delivered by the petitioner to some other person. He has found that the petitioner, a tenant to whom the accommodation was let out by the landlord, has unlawfully delivered the possession of the accommodation to other person. Therefore, according to the Authorized Officer, the accommodation had not fallen vacant, but its possession was unlawfully delivered by the petitioner to some other person. We do not express any opinion on this question in the present petition because if the petitioner who was admittedly a tenant in possession of the suit accommodation, has unlawfully sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the accommodation, it can afford a ground for his eviction under section 12 (i) (b) of the Act, in case the landlord chooses to institute a suit for eviction. 2. The jurisdiction to enquire into the question as to whether the aforesaid ground has been made out or not vests in a civil Court in a suit for eviction. No provision of law has been pointed out to us which confers that jurisdiction on the Authorized Officer. The provisions of section 39 of the Act restrict the rights of a landlord in the matter of letting out accommodation which has fallen vacant or which is likely to fall vacant. These provisions are not meant to provide a handle to the landlord to seek eviction of his tenant, for which purpose a suit is required to be instituted by the landlord if possession of the accommodation has to be obtained in accordance with law. Petition allowed.