ORDER A.N. Varma, J. -This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is directed against orders dated 16-1-1978 and 4-8-1978 passed respectively by respondents Nos. 3 and 4. 2. These are the material facts. A residential house described as Kori Quarter No. 59 near Railway Station Road Orai under various orders under challenge was allotted to the petitioner in March 1975. The petitioner entered into possession of the said quarter in pursuance of the said allotment. On 13-7-77, one Shyam Behari Lal made an application for the allotment of the said house alleging that it was vacant. It was stated that the petitioner was not residing in it and had allowed it to be occupied by others. This application was followed by some other Dasrath Singh. 3. On 10-8-1977, the petitioner moved an application/objection alleging that be had come to know that some individuals had made applications for allotment of the quarter on the false representation that the quarter had fallen vacant and that some enquiry had been ordered to be made by the Rent Control Inspector with a view to setting the house notified as vacant. The said proceedings were entirely unauthorised and improper inasmuch as the quarter was not vacant at all. It was also asserted in this connection that instead of getting the enquiry conducted by the Rent Control Inspector, it might be carried out by the Naib Tahsildar so that justice might be done. It appears that the District Magistrate was not satisfied with the way the Rent Control Inspector was conducting the enquiry, and, therefore, he asked the District Supply Officer to enquire into the question of vacancy himself. The District Supply Officer then appears to have recorded the statements of a number of witnesses, namely, Satish Kumar, Mahadeo Das, Sant Kumar son of Radhey Shyam. These statements were recorded by the District Supply Officer on 20-9-77. On the basis of these statements, it appears that the vacancy was notified by the District Supply Officer (who was also the Rent Control and Eviction Officer). It might be mentioned that some of the persons examined by the District Supply Officer were themselves applicants for allotment of the quarter. 4. On the basis of these statements, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer notified the vacancy on 4-10-1977. It might be mentioned that some of the persons examined by the District Supply Officer were themselves applicants for allotment of the quarter. 4. On the basis of these statements, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer notified the vacancy on 4-10-1977. Against the Notification of the vacancy, the petitioner filed an objection accompanied by an affidavit on 23-11-1977. In this objection, it was asserted that the quarter was not vacant at all, and that the declaration of vacancy was illegal and against the facts. After the notification of vacancy, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer proceeded to consider the various applications for allotment as well as the objection of the petitioner against the declaration of vacancy. 5. Relying on the evidence collected by the District Supply Officer on 20-9 1979, as well as other facts and circumstances referred to in his order, the Rent Control and Exaction Officer held that the quarter was vacant and was available for allotment. 6. Among the applicants for allotment, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer chose Narain Singh respondent No. 1 in this petition as the person who was best entitled to the allotment of the accommodation in dispute. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer did this by a composite order dated 16-1-78. Against the said order, two Revisions were filed, one by the petitioner and the other by Shyam Behari aforesaid. Both these Revisions have been dismissed by the learned 111 Additional District Judge Jalaun at Orai by an order dated 4-8-1978 which is under challenge in the present petition. 7. Against the said order, two Revisions were filed, one by the petitioner and the other by Shyam Behari aforesaid. Both these Revisions have been dismissed by the learned 111 Additional District Judge Jalaun at Orai by an order dated 4-8-1978 which is under challenge in the present petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the following points for my consideration :- (1) The question whether there was vacancy or deemed vacancy of the accommodation in dispute was a jurisdictional fact, and a finding given thereon was one which was open to review under Section 18 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972), and the learned District Judge has erred in taking the view to the contrary and has thereby failed to exercise the jurisdiction which was vested in him by law; (2) The Rent Control and Eviction Officer acted with manifest illegality and in violation of the principles of natural justice in acting upon the evidence collected by him in the form of statements of witnesses examined on 20-9-1977 behind the petitioners back and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine those witnesses. (3) The learned District Judge could certainly consider the complaint of the petitioner mentioned under point No. 2 above inasmuch as the said complaint related to matters concerning the procedure adopted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in conducting the enquiry into the question of vacancy. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that on the findings recorded by both the courts below that there was vacancy, which finding of fact not being vitiated by any error of law, was not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the objection of the petitioner has, rightly, been dismissed by both the courts below. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am clearly of the view that this petition must succeed. 10. Taking the first point first, it does appear that the learned District Judge did not comprehend truly and correctly the ambit of powers and jurisdiction which he was called upon to exercise under Section 18 of the aforesaid Act. The learned District Judge has observed thus :- "There is no dispute that the scope in Revision is a limited one. Taking the first point first, it does appear that the learned District Judge did not comprehend truly and correctly the ambit of powers and jurisdiction which he was called upon to exercise under Section 18 of the aforesaid Act. The learned District Judge has observed thus :- "There is no dispute that the scope in Revision is a limited one. Findings of fact could hardly be interfered with unless of course the same are perverse or are based on no material. Whether "Sri Ashok Kumar shifted his house-hold effects or whether Sri Ashok Kumar otherwise allowed his relations including Sant Kumar and others to occupy the said accommodation are questions of fact. I do not find reasons to interfere with these bare questions of facts." While the above observations may be correct in regard to questions of facts which are unrelated to questions of jurisdiction, the same would not be correct in regard to findings relating to questions of jurisdiction. It is settled view that the question of vacancy of an accommodation in matters of allotment is a question relating to the jurisdiction of the authority to make an order of allotment. In the case of Shrimati Munni Devi v. Gokul Chand reported in 1970 All LJ 1066, their Lordships construing the provisions of Section 7 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 which were in pari materia with Section 16 oi the present Act, namely, U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, observed thus :- "The Legislature has invested the District Magistrate with the power on the existence of vacancy to let the premises to another, but the Legislature has not made the determination of the preliminary state of facts by the District Magistrate conclusive. The jurisdiction to pass an order of allotment only arises if there is a vacancy But whether there is a vacancy is jurisdictional fact which could not be decided by him finally. By reaching an erroneous decision he cannot clothe himself with jurisdiction which he does not possess." To the same effect is the view of our own Court as expressed by S. D. Agrawala, J. in the case of Basant Singh v. The Additional District Judge reported in 1979 (U. P.) RCC 530. By reaching an erroneous decision he cannot clothe himself with jurisdiction which he does not possess." To the same effect is the view of our own Court as expressed by S. D. Agrawala, J. in the case of Basant Singh v. The Additional District Judge reported in 1979 (U. P.) RCC 530. Interpreting the scope of Section 18 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, S. D. Agrawala, J. held that the question whether there was a vacancy or deemed vacancy was a jurisdictional fact, which the District Court was entitled to examine in a Revision under Section 18 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. With respect, I entirely agree with this statement of the law. The learned District Judge was, therefore, not right in feeling inhibited in going into the question whether there was a vacancy or deemed vacancy as contemplated by law or not. No doubt, the learned District Judge has also referred to the evidence of the petitioner and has criticised the same. However, from the observations made by the learned District Judge at more than one place, it is clear that he was labouring under the mistaken notion that findings recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer were sacrosanct not liable to be interfered with in Revision. Counsel for the petitioner is therefore, right in his first submission. 11. I now take up the second and third points together as the same are interdependent. It appears that the evidence of a number of witnesses was collected by the District Supply Officer on 29-9-1977, that is, after the petitioner had submitted his first objection against the proceedings for declaration of vacancy. The complaint of the petitioner is that there is no warrant either in the provisions of the Act, or in the Rules framed thereunder or even in the nature of proceedings entitling the authority dealing with the question of vacancy, to rely on evidence collected ex parte after an objection has been filed under sub-rule (2) of the Rule 8. I entirely agree with this submission. The reason is that whatever might be the character of enquiry prior to the filing of the objection under sub-rule (2) of Rule 8, the nature of proceedings certainly acquire quasi-judicial character after such an objection is filed. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 also points to the same conclusion. 12. I entirely agree with this submission. The reason is that whatever might be the character of enquiry prior to the filing of the objection under sub-rule (2) of Rule 8, the nature of proceedings certainly acquire quasi-judicial character after such an objection is filed. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 also points to the same conclusion. 12. Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the aforesaid Act which has a bearing upon the issue, reads as follows :- "8. Ascertainment of vacancy :- (1) The District Magistrate shall, before making any order of allotment or release in respect of any building which is alleged to be vacant under Section 12 or to be otherwise vacant or to be likely to fall vacant obtain a report from the Rent Control Inspector. (2) The Inspector shall inspect the building, as far as possible, in the presence of the landlord and of the tenant or any other occupant and submit his report after eliciting the facts wherever practical "by at least two respectable persons residing in the locality, and the conclusion in the report of the Inspector shall be pasted on the notice board of the office of the District Magistrate for the information of the general public, and an order of allotment may be passed not before the expiration of three days from the date of such pasting, and if in the meantime any objection is received, not before the disposal of the said objection. (3) Any objection under sub-rule (2) shall be decided after considering any evidence that the objector or any other persons concerned may adduce." Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 clearly enjoins the District Magistrate to decide the question of vacancy after considering the evidence that the objector or any person concerned may adduce. In my opinion, once the petitioner filed an objection as a sit: ting tenant against the proceedings which, had taken place for ascertainment of the vacancy, no evidence could thereafter be collected or used by the District Magistrate or the officer concerned without notice or information to the petitioner. The question, however, is whether the petitioner had notice or information of the date on which the District Supply Officer recorded the statements of witnesses. The question, however, is whether the petitioner had notice or information of the date on which the District Supply Officer recorded the statements of witnesses. The petitioner had made a grievance of the fact that the Rent Control Officer had relied on the testimony of interested persons behind his back (see the fourth ground contained in the memorandum of Revision filed before the District Judge, a true copy of which has been annexed as Annexure "4" to the writ petition). 13. This ground taken by the petitioner certainly related to a matter concerning the jurisdiction of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and was, therefore, capable of being investigated by the learned District Judge even in a Revision under Section 18 of the Act, but the learned District Judge appears to have omitted to consider this objection of the petitioner because of his view about the ambit of power under Section 18 of the aforesaid Act. The learned District Judge should, therefore, investigate the plea of the petitioner afresh. If the learned District Judge comes to the conclusion that the evidence was collected and relied on by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses, the grievance of the petitioner under point No. 2 would certainly be justified and such evidence will have to be excluded from consideration. 14. For the reasons stated above, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the learned III Additional District Judge dated 4-8-1978 and 16-1-1978 are quashed. The case is remanded to the respondent No. 4 for disposing of the petitioners Revision according to law having regard to the observations made in this judgment. The respondent No. 4 will try and dispose of the petitioners Revision within a period of three months from today. The petitioner shall, however, not be evicted from the accommodation in dispute until the disposal of this Revision. The parties are left to bear their own costs of this petition.