Short Note : By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenged the order, dated 1st December 1973, passed by the Authorised Officer, Collectorate Jabalpur under section 39 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, allotting the petitioner's house No. 845, Jabalpur. Held : House No. 845 was in possession of a tenant. The petitioner got it vacated by obtaining a decree in Civil suit on the ground that the petitioner needed the house for his own occupation. This decree was passed on 1st January 1969. The petitioner got possession of the house on 1st February 1969. It appears that the Rent Control Inspector reported that the petitioner had let out a portion of House No. 845 to one Shri Pande, Sales-tax Inspector who vacated it. It was on this report that the Authorised Officer started proceedings for allotting the house under section 39. An accommodation of which possession is taken by the landlord in pursuance of an order passed under the Act for the purposes of occupation of himself is outside the purview of section 39 as is clearly provided in sub-section (5)(c) of that section. If, however, the landlord again lets out the house after the tenant vacated it the provisions of section 39 would be attracted. The petitioner's contention before the Authorised Officer was that he had never let out the house, as alleged by the Rent Control Inspector, and that he an along after obtaining possession of the house in February 1969 was in occupation, without deciding this controversy, the Authorised Officer allotted the house fn favour of respondent No.2. Now as pointed by this Court, the house was outside the purview of section 39 unless it could be shown that it was again let out as alleged by the Rent Control Inspector. In the circumstances, if the Authorised Officer wanted to exercise jurisdiction under sections 39 for allotting it he ought to have decided the question whether the house was really let out by the petitioner as alleged by the Rent Control Inspector. In the absence of any finding on this question, the order of the allotment cannot be sustained. Petition allowed.