JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J.:- This writ petition has been filed by Ramesh Chandra, the petitioner, who was an applicant for allotment, against the judgment of the District Judge. Allahabad, dated 9.12.1977. 2. Premises No. 199. Meerganj, Allahabad, belongs to Smt. Deo Kali and her two sons Rakesh Kumar and Mukesh Kumar. A major portion of this house was in the occupation of Smt. Deo Kali and her sons for their residence. The disputed portion of the house, which consisted of one room, 6 feet x 8 feet, and another room 10 feet x 8 feet, a tin covered room/shop 6 feet x 10 feet, and a Chabutra in front thereof, had been let out to one Ram Chandra. Ram Chandra was evicted and possession of the portion in dispute was obtained by Smt. Deo Kali on 20.4.1976. 3. On 26.4.1976. Smt Deo Kali and her sons filed an application for release. On 30.4.1976, Ramesh Chandra, the petitioner, filed an application for allotment. Another application for allotment was filed by Umesh Chandra on 22.5.1976. All these applications were considered by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. By the order dated 12.12.1976, he allotted the premises in dispute to one Deo Narain, who was also the applicant for allotment. Against this order of allotment, three revisions were preferred to the District Judge. All the three revisions were decided by a common Judgment dated 2.3.1977. The main findings, which were relevant for the purposes of the present writ petition, were: (1) that the portion in dispute was a residential one, and (2) that it was a part of the building in the occupation of the landlord for residential purposes. 4. After having given the aforesaid two findings, the learned District Judge had that the allotment order made in favour of Deco Narain was illegal. He, therefore, set aside the said order and sent back the case to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for considering the question of allotment afresh. 5. After remand, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the premises to Ramesh Chandra, the petitioner, Aggrieved by the order of allotment, Umesh Chandra, respondent No. 3, filed a revision before the District Judge. The learned District Judge allowed the revision and set aside the order of allotment made in favour of Ramesh Chandra. 5. After remand, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the premises to Ramesh Chandra, the petitioner, Aggrieved by the order of allotment, Umesh Chandra, respondent No. 3, filed a revision before the District Judge. The learned District Judge allowed the revision and set aside the order of allotment made in favour of Ramesh Chandra. He held that since Ramesh Chandra wanted the accommodation for commercial purpose and not for residential purpose, the allotment made in favour of Ramesh Chandra was illegal. He also held that amongst all the applicants for allotment, the claim of Umesh Chandra was the best and that there was no justification for the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for not allotting the premises to him. The learned District Judge set aside the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and sent back the case to him again for a proper consideration of the claim of Umesh Chandra. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment of the District Judge, the present writ petition was filed by Ramesh Chandra. 7. The main question that arises for decision in this case is whether the District Judge was justified in holding that Umesh Chandra was preferentially entitled for allotment. This direction is against the mandate of the Legislature contained in the Explanation of Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act. The said Explanation lays down that the power to rescind the final order under Sub- section (2) of Section 18 does not include the power to pass an allotment order or to give a direction of allotment in favour of a person different from the allottee mentioned in the order. In the instant case, although there is no clear direction given by the District Judge that the premises be allotted to Umesh Chandra, but the observations made by him to the effect that Umesh Chandra had it better claim for allotment than other applicants would amount to a direction, which is prohibited by the Explanation to Section 18(2). If the learned District Judge was not satisfied that the application for allotment made by Umesh Chand Chandra was correctly decided, the proper course for him was to have set aside the order passed thereon and to have sent back the case to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer without giving any direction to him to allot the same to Umesh Chandra. 8. 8. The next question that now arises for determination is whether the District Judge was right in setting aside the allotment order made in favour of Ramesh Chandra.The ground on which it vas set aside was that as Ramesh Chandra had sought the allotment for non-residential purposes, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer bad no jurisdiction to allot the house to him for residential purposes. It is true that the purpose mentioned in the application for allotment by Ramesh Chandra was business, but it appears that subsequently due to the changed circumstances he desired the premises to be allotted to him for residential as well as non-residential purposes. He, however, did not make any amendment in the allotment application. The learned District Judge was right in holding that as the application was made for a specific purpose, it could not be allotted to Ramesh Chandra for another. But, on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, it seems proper that Ramesh Chandra should not have been rejected outrightly simply because the purpose disclosed in the application was different than the one for which it was allotted. 9. For making an allotment, the procedure prescribed is in Rule 11. If there are more applicants than one for allotment, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is required to allot the premises in accordance with the priorities given in Rule 11. It does not mean that a Rent Control and Eviction Officer is not even required to consider to the bona fides of an applicant. He can allot a premise to a person having a prior claim as mentioned only on being satisfied that the same is genuinely required by such an applicant. A person filing an application fora faked or unreal need could not be entitled to allotment. In my opinion, the proper course for the District Judge to do was to have set aside the allotment order and to have given a chance to Ramesh Chandra to amend his application. As that was not done by the District Judge, it appears appropriate that such a direction is now given. If, after remand, Ramesh Chandra files an application for amendment, the Rent Control and, Eviction Officer will deal with the same in accordance with law. As that was not done by the District Judge, it appears appropriate that such a direction is now given. If, after remand, Ramesh Chandra files an application for amendment, the Rent Control and, Eviction Officer will deal with the same in accordance with law. As the application for release has already been dismissed, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer would have now to consider the respective claims for allotment afresh and to allot the premises to the person who is found to be entitled to get it. 10. Subject to the above, the writ. petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the District Judge is quashed. The case is sent back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for deciding the question of allotment afresh in the light of the observations made above. There shall be no order as to costs.