K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under Art. 226 of the constitution, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 22-7-78 passed by the Deputy commissioner, D. K. , Mangalore, in h. R. C.-No. 74/78-79. By the said order, the Deputy Commissioner has set aside the order dated 26-5-1978 passed by the 4th respondent (Rent Controller, mangalore) in H. R. C. CR. No. 36178-79 allotting the premises in question bearing Door No. 3-9-676, Kadri hills, Mangalore, to the petitioner under the provisions of the Karnataka rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Karnataka rent Control Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and has allotted the premises in question to the first responddnt. ( 2 ) THE 3rd respondent-Deputy commissioner, has set aside the aforesaid order passed by the 4th respondent only on the ground that the first respondent has registered his name by filing an application in Form 1-A under Rule 4 of the Rules, whereas the petitioner has not registered; therefore, the 1st respondent is entitled for a preference under the aforesaid Rule. It appears to me that the 3rd respondent has not correctly appreciated the scope of Rule 4 of the Rules. Rule 4 of the rules can be availed of by only those persons and public authorities who have been enumerated in the said rule and not by any other persons or other public authorities. Rule 4 (1) (A) of the Rules relates to non-residential buildings and Rule 4 (1) (B) relates to residential buildings. Rule 4 (1) provides that where no direction is issued under the proviso to sub-sec. (2) of S. 8 of the Act, the Controller shall observe the order of priority as enumerated in R. 4 (1) (A) and (B) in selecting the public authority or other person for allotment of premises. The petitioner and respondent-1 do not fall in any one of the categories of persons enumerated in Rule 4 (1) (B ). Rule 4 (1) (A) is not applicable to the case because the premises in question is a residential premises. The petitioner and respondent-1 do not fall in any one of the categories of persons enumerated in Rule 4 (1) (B ). Rule 4 (1) (A) is not applicable to the case because the premises in question is a residential premises. ( 3 ) SUB-RULE (2) of Rule 4 provides that any person who is eligible for allotment under sub-rule (1) thereof, may make an application in Form 1-A, to the Controller for registering his name specifying his address, locality in which accommodation is required and the rent he is willing to pay. ( 4 ) SUB-RULE (3) of Rule 4 provides for payment of a fee for registration of application. Sub-rules (4) and (5) thereof provide that on receipt of the application, the controller shall, if he is satisfied that the particulars contamed in the application are correct and complete and the applicant is eligible under the Act and the Rules for allotment, register his name, if not reject the application. ( 5 ) SUB-RULE (8) of Rule, 4 further provides that the registration of the application under Rule 4 shall not dispense with the making of an application in Form No. 2 as required by sub-rule (5) of Rule 8 for allotment. Thus, a reading of sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 4 of the Rules together, makes it clear that it is only those persons and public authorities who have been mentioned in Rule 4 (1) (A) and (B) are entitled to register applications under the said Rule and it is only they who are eligible for priority. That being so, the 1st respondent was not entitled for the benefit of Rule 4 of the Rules therefore, he could not have made the application under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 and could not have been registered as such. Hence, the 3rd respondent was in error in holding that the 1st respondent was entitled for priority as he had registered under Rule 4. Consequently, the order of the 3rd respondent is not sustainable. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in H. R. C. No. 74 78- 79, dated 22-7-1978 (Exhibit-A) is hereby quashed. --- *** --- .