JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - Premises No. 19, Rajpur Road, Dehra Dun, belongs to L. N. Saklani, respondent 3. This is a big shop divided into two parts by a wooden partition. One of the said parts was let out to Sohan Lal Arora, the petitioner, and the other portion had been let out to one Hari Kishan Lal. Hari Kishan Lal vacated the shop. There is a dispute between the parties about the date on which he vacated the shop. I, therefore, need not mention the date here on which the shop was vacated. 2. On 30-9-1972, the petitioner applied for allotment of the said shop. This application was made in the prescribed form "A", meant for the said purpose. As against column 15(c), the entry made was "Already in possession". Pursuant to the aforesaid application, Rent Control Inspector was deputed to make an inspection of the shop and to submit a report thereon. On 9-10-1972, the Inspector submitted a report stating that the petitioner was already in possession of the whole shop no. 19, Rajpur Road, He also pointed out. "The owner did not raise any objection regarding the possession of the applicant in the rest portion which shows that his consent was there." On receipt of the aforesaid report, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed the following order : "Let it be regularised accordingly. Sd/- B.V. Singh. 9-10-1972." On 19-10-1972, the landlord filed an application under section 16(5, of U.P. Act. XIII of 1972 for recalling the said order on the ground that the allotment order made in favour of the petitioner was contrary to the provisions of Clause (a) of section 16(1) of the Act. The landlord also alleged that the shop was also needed by him for the use of his family members and, as such, for the said purpose a release application had been by him on 1-10-1972. The landlord claimed that on 9-10-1972, the Rent filed Control and Eviction Officer made the allotment order in favour of the petitioner without considering the release application which had been filed by the landlord on 1-10-1972 hence the same was invalid. 3. The application filed under section 16(5) was contested by the petitioner. The landlord claimed that on 9-10-1972, the Rent filed Control and Eviction Officer made the allotment order in favour of the petitioner without considering the release application which had been filed by the landlord on 1-10-1972 hence the same was invalid. 3. The application filed under section 16(5) was contested by the petitioner. One of the grounds taken by him was that he was in possession of the shop with the consent of the landlord on the date immediately before the enforcement of U.P. Act XIII of 1972. He asserted in paragraph 15 of the objections that Hari Kishan Lai, the previous tenant, had vacated the disputed shop on 30-6-1972, and that Ramesh Narain Saklani, one of the landlords delivered the possession of the same to him on 1-7-1972 and since then he was in possession. 4. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer held that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was invalid inasmuch as the same was in contravention of Rule 8 of the Rules. The invalidity pointed out in the order was that the report of the Inspector submitted on 9-10-1972 did not contain the names of the witnesses in whose presence the inspection had been made by him. As the order of the Rent Control and Eviction officer purported to be one under Sub- section (5) of section 8, the petitioner preferred a revision before the District Judge. Having found that the revision of the petitioner was devoid of substance, the District Judge rejected the same on 21-3-1977. Against the said order, the present writ petition was filed. 5. At this place, it may be worthwhile pointing out that one of the controversies between the parties in the courts below was whether the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction officer on 9-10-1972 in favour of the petitioner was an allotment order or an order regularising the tenancy. Sri S. N. Verma, counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner had made a formal application for allotment in the prescribed form for the said purpose, but for all intents and purposes his claim was for regularisation. Sri S. N. Verma, counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner had made a formal application for allotment in the prescribed form for the said purpose, but for all intents and purposes his claim was for regularisation. He claimed that since the petitioner had been admitted by the landlord before the coming into force of U.P. Act XIII of 1972, and that he was in possession of the shop on the date immediately before the commencement of the Act with the consent of the landlord, he was entitled to the regularisation of his tenancy. In this connection, he also brought to my notice the order of the Rent Control and Eviction officer which had been passed on the said application. The order, as already quoted above, was; "Let it be regularised accordingly." The question, therefore, to be decided is whether the petitioner was entitled to the regularisation of his tenancy. The petitioners claim, as already stated, was that Hari Kishan Lal had vacated the shop on 3-6-1972. The case of the landlord, however, was that the shop was vacated by him on 1-10-1972. The landlord had further pleaded that the petitioner had obtained possession of the disputed shop in collusion with the outgoing tenant Hari Kishan Lal. He denied that the possession had been handed over by him to the petitioner. All these controversies gave rise to the following questions ; (a) Whether the petitioner obtained possession of the shop on 1-7- 1972 ? (b) Whether the petitioner entered into the possession with the consent of the landlord ? (3) Whether the petitioner had been admitted to be a tenant of the shop by the Landlord ? Unless these three questions had been decided, the controversy involved in the present case could not be resolved. It appears that as there was a formal allotment order made in favour of the petitioner, neither the Rent Control and Eviction Officer nor the learned Additional District Judge decided the aforesaid controversy. They merely confined themselves to the invalidity of the allotment order by holding that since the allotment order made in favour of the petitioner was in contravention of Rule 8, the same was liable to be set aside. They merely confined themselves to the invalidity of the allotment order by holding that since the allotment order made in favour of the petitioner was in contravention of Rule 8, the same was liable to be set aside. As before me the petitioner's counsel contended that the petitioner was not claiming any allotment order but was only anxious to get his tenancy regularised, the allotment order made in favour of the petitioner should only be treated as an order regularising his tenancy. This could be done only if the petitioner had established the requirements of section 14 of the Act. 6. Accordingly, it appears that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer be directed to decide the said controversy afresh. If the Rent Control and Eviction Officer finds that the petitioner was entitled to the regularisation of his tenancy, there would be no need of passing any allotment order in his favour. If, however, the finding arrived at is that the possession of the petitioner was unauthorised, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer would be fully empowered to take proceedings against the petitioner for his eviction, and for allotment. 7. For all these reasons, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the learned District Judge dated 21-3-1977 rejecting the revision of the petitioner, and that of the Rent Control and Eviction officer dated 30-11-1976 allowing the review application of the landlord passed under section 16(5) of the Act, as well as the allotment order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 9-10-1972 (Annexure 6' to the writ petition) are quashed. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer is directed to decide the question of regularisation afresh in the light of the observations made above. In the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their owns costs.