JUDGMENT K. C. Agrawal, J. :- This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the III Additional District Judge, Nainital dated June 23, 1977. 2. The dispute in this case is with respect to a house situated in Mohalla Qila Chaubey Ji Ka Bagh, Kashipur. The house belonged to one Prem Kishan. This house fell vacant some time in the month of December, 1976. Surendra Nath, the petitioner occupied this house on 24th December, 1976. He also filed an application for the allotment of this house to himself on the ground that the same was needed by the petitioner for using it as accommodation for running there three education institutions, viz. (1) Sainik Convent School (2) Hindi Mahavidalaya and (3) Ayurved Mahavidyalya. In the convent he was imparting education to children whereas he was only conducting examinations and making arrangements for examinations which were being carried on in the names of Hindi Mahavidyalya and Ayurved Mahavidyalaya. He also got the prayer for allotment renewed by filing another application dated 3rd January, 1977. Respondents 3 to 6 also filed applications for the allotment of the premises on 4th January, 1977. 3. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application for allotment made by the petitioner and allowed that of the respondents 3 to 6. Against the order of allotment made in favour of respondents 3 to 6 the petitioner went up in revision under section 18 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Revision was also rejected. Hence this writ petition. 4. On the last occasion, an argument was advanced by the petitioner's learned counsel that since the respondents 3 to 6 had occupied another building for the purpose for which the application for allotment had been filed and since their need was fulfilled, the application for allotment was liable to be dismissed, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, I remitted an issue to the District Judge for a finding whether the aforesaid respondents bad occupied any building as alleged by the petitioner. By the order dated June 17, 1976 the learned District Judge held that a premises had been taken by Ashok Kumar, respondent No. 6 as a temporary measure. By the order dated June 17, 1976 the learned District Judge held that a premises had been taken by Ashok Kumar, respondent No. 6 as a temporary measure. It is thus clear that the allegations of the petitioner that respondents 3 to 6 had taken another building on a permanent basis for the need for which the application for allotment was filed, cannot be accepted. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to assail the finding of the District Judge on the ground that the same was erroneous. I am not inclined to accept this submission. The learned District Judge took 'evidence and found that the possession of Ashok Kumar in the building of Dr. N. C. Rastogi was of a temporary nature. 6. The next submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer committed an error in rejecting an application for allotment filed by the petitioner on erroneous ground that the petitioner did not require the premises in dispute inasmuch as be had already in his possession a building in which he was running a convent school. The learned counsel urged that the petitioner had in fact, left the building in which he was earlier running the convent school and that after leaving that building he had occupied the disputed one. Admittedly the petitioner did not lead any evidence before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer which could establish that he had left the building which was in his occupation before 24th January, 1976 and that be occupied one thereafter. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer found that the petitioner did not need the present building as he was already in possession of another. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer cannot, therefore, be said to have committed any error in rejecting the application. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on rule 11 and submitted that as his application was prior in time than that of respondents 3 to 6, therefore, on the basis of the principle incorporated in Rule 11 that "first come first served" the application for allotment of the petitioner should have been allowed. 8. Rule 11 lays down the procedure in accordance with which the application for allotment has to be considered. 8. Rule 11 lays down the procedure in accordance with which the application for allotment has to be considered. This rule can be applied only if the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is satisfied that the person applying for allotment genuinely requires the premises. If the need of an applicant for allotment is not genuine the said rule would not apply.In the instant case the Rent Control and Eviction Officer found that the petitioner was in possession of another building. That being so, the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer could not be challenged on the ground that it contravenes rule 11 of the Rules. The finding of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the petitioner's need was not genuine is one of fact. It is not possible to set aside the same by this court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The District Judge was also right in taking the view that in revision filed under section 18, an order could be interfered with only if a court committed an error of jurisdiction. 9. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. The petitioner is granted time upto 31st December, 1978 to vacate the premises. There shall be no order as to the costs.