G. N. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THE grievance of the writ petitioner is that the Rent Controller in allotting the premises in favour respondent No. 3 has not taken into consideration the request made by the tenant occupying the adjacent premises, that the premises should be allotted only to a vegetarian as he is a strict vegetarian and that it would offend his feelings if the same is allotted to a non-vegetarian. ( 2 ) ON going through the order of the rent Controller, I find that there is absolutely no reference made to the objections raised by the tenant; and the Deputy Commissioner in the course of his order has observed thus :"that her client is a non-vegetarian, it is true, but asked the learned advocate why was this not raised when the allotment proceedings were held in the HRC Court. In view of these the order of the House rent Controller should be upheld and appeal dismissed. "so, the Deputy Commissioner simply says that, it was not raised before the rent Controller at all is not true. A copy of the application sent to the rent Controller is produced in this writ petition at Annexure-C and the writ petitioner has sworn to it. The government has not filed a, counter which clearly shows that such an application was received and the fact remains that it is not considered by the Rent Controller. It is also not considered by the Deputy commissioner for he has not advanced any reasons why, in the circumstances, the allotment should be upheld. ( 3 ) S. 8 (3) of the Rent Control act states:"in considering the causes, if any shown by the landlord or other person in possession, the Controller shall in case the premises to be leased is a part of the building give due regard to the customs, manners and social convention of the persons occupying the remaining portion of the building, in so far as such customs manners and social conventions are not opposed to law, public order, morality or health. "thus, it is mandatory on the part of the Rent Controller to consider the objections of a tenant, occupying a part of the same building, that only 3 vegetarian should be allotted to the premises. The objections raised cannot be said to be opposed to law or morality. "thus, it is mandatory on the part of the Rent Controller to consider the objections of a tenant, occupying a part of the same building, that only 3 vegetarian should be allotted to the premises. The objections raised cannot be said to be opposed to law or morality. The fact that it is not considered at all by the authorities vitiates thejr orders. ( 4 ) HENCE, both the orders of the rent Controller as well as the Deputy commissioner produced at Annexures 'a' and 'b' are here by quashed. The rent Controller is directed to take fresh steps in the matter and dispose of the same in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations made above. --- *** --- .