N. R. KUDOOR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the owner of the building bearing Muncipal No. C. 1. 20. 7, N. G. O. 's Colony, Jewargi road, Gulbarga. It is a shoreyed building having the ground floor and first floor. That building was for merly leased out to Babasaheb Ambedkar Hostel, gulbarga. On the request of the petitioner, the management of Babasaheb Ambedkar Hostel vacated the premises and the family of the petitioner occupied the ground floor of the premises. The Tahsiklar has reported the vacancy of the building to the 2nd respondent Rent Con troller who, on the information received from the Tahsildar, issued a notification on 20. 9. 1982 inviting applications from the intending persons for allotment of the first floor, to be filed on or before 27. 9. 1982. Pursuant to the notification, the 1st respondent the Warden, S. S. Law College Hostel and the Presiding Officer, Labour - Court, Gulbarga, filed their applications for allotment of the premises. The premises consisted of 1. 4 rooms in the ground floor and 13 rooms in the first floor. The petitioner claimed 7 rooms out of the 13 rooms in the first floor for his personal use and occupation in addition to the ground floor which he had already occupied. The 2nd respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner for releasing 7 rooms in the first floor in his favour for his personal use and. occupation and allotted the first floor in favour of the 1st respondent for being used as boy's hostel' of S. S. Law College, as per annexure-C. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order annexure-C as he has no alternate or efficacious remedy except to invoke the powers of this court under Art. 226 and 22. 7 of the Constitution. 7 of the Constitution. ( 2 ) SRI Appa Rao, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, in the course of his arguments submitted that although S. 12 of Karnataka Rant control Act, 1961 (the 'act' for short) provides for an appeal against the order Annexure-C. the petitioner has not availed of the statutory remedy of appeal as provided under S. 12, since the 2nd respondent allotted the premises to the 1st respondent on a direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner to lease out the premises in favour of the 1st respondent and as such the availment of the statutory remedy of appeal by approaching the very same Deputy commissioner who is the appellate authority would be a futile exercise or attempt on the part of the petitioner to get the very order of the 2nd respondent reversed and as such the approach of the petitioner to this court through this wirt petition is just and appropriate. ( 3 ) THE short question therefore, that arises for determination at this stage in the light of the submission made by Sri Appa Rao is whether the petitioner is entitled to seek the discretionary remedy under Art. 226 of the Constitution before exhausting the statutroy remedy of appeal as provided under S. 12 of the Act. ( 4 ) THE petitioner appears to have advanced two contentions before the 2nd respondent. They were: (1) that out of 13 rooms in the first floor of the premises, he required 7 rooms for his personal use and occupation and (2) that be was agreeable to let out the remaining portion of the first floor to any Government office including for a girls hostel or for the residence of any families of the Government official but not to a boys hostel on the ground of past experience when the premises was leased, out to Dr. Ambedkar's boys hostel, the inmates of which created lot of trouble to the inmates of the residental premises consisting mostly of muslim community who observe pardha, since the premises is situated in the midst of a residential locality. He appeared to have maintained that he was agreeable for leasing out' the remaining portion of the first floor to any girls hostel or any Govt. office or residential quarters to any of the govt. officials but not to a boys hostel. He appeared to have maintained that he was agreeable for leasing out' the remaining portion of the first floor to any girls hostel or any Govt. office or residential quarters to any of the govt. officials but not to a boys hostel. He appeared to have stated before the 2nd respondent that six rooms in the. first floor over and above his requirement of 7 rooms may be allotted to the presiding Officer, Labour 'court Gulbarga who was one of the applicants before the 2nd respondent for allotment of the premises. ( 5 ) THE 2nd respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner to allow him to use 7 rooms in the first floor for his personal requirement on the ground that he had consented for the Allotment of the first floor to a girls hostel and the 14 rooms in the ground floor which were in his possession would be sufficient for his residence and also to locate his office etc. Having rejected the petitioner's claim for 7 rooms in the first floor for his personal use and occupation, the 2nd respondent allot, eu the first floor of the premises to the 1st respondent on the ground that the deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga Dist- in his "order No DCP/msc/1/ 82-83 dt. 29. 9. 1982 under proviso to sub-section of S. 8 of the Act read with Government Notification No. RD. 60 GHR 62 ii dated 19. 7. 1963, directed him to lease out the premises in favour of the 1st respondent without considering the various objections raised by the petitioner against the allotment of the premises to be made to a boys hostel, after rejecting the application filed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, as it was not in order. ( 6 ) THE petitioner advanced inter alia four main grounds to assail the order Annexure/c passed, by the 2nd respondent in his writ petition. They were, failure to consider the various objections raised by the petitioner against the allotment of the premises to a boys hostel as required under subsec. , (3) S. 8, incompetency of the Deputy commissioner for want authorisation by the State Government to issue direction to the 2nd respondent to lease out the premises in favour of the 1st respondent as required under subsec. (2) of S. 8 of the Act. , (3) S. 8, incompetency of the Deputy commissioner for want authorisation by the State Government to issue direction to the 2nd respondent to lease out the premises in favour of the 1st respondent as required under subsec. (2) of S. 8 of the Act. non consideration of the irregularity in making the application by the 1st respondent and the order under challenge was made without considering the important admissions made by the 1st respondent besides it being not a speakink order. ( 7 ) THE question for consideration is whether the petitioner could urge the above grounds in appeal before the deputy Commissioner notwithstanding the fact that the allotment of the premises in favour of the 1st respondent was made. by the 2nd respondent solely on the basis of the direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner and whether it would be futile to approach him for revising the impugned order. ( 8 ) S. 8 of the Act lays down the procedure to be followed before ordering leasing of any building for a public authority or other person under S. 5 or under S. 6 by the Rent Controller. Sub-see (1) of S. 8 provides for issuing a notice to the landlord or any other person who may be in possession of the building notified for allotment, directing them not to deal with the notified premises in any manner as specified therein and also show cause within 7 days from the date of service of the notice why the building should not be ordered to be leased to a public authority or other person as specified in the notice. Sub-sec. (2) provides for the observance of such order of priority as may be prescribed in selecting the public authority or other person in whose favour an order may be made under S. 8. Rule 4 of the karnataka Rent Control Rules, 1961 (the 'rules' for short) prescribes the order of priority in selecting the public authority or other person by the Rent controller as provided under subsec. (2) of S. 8. The proviso to sub-sec (2) lays down that where a direction is issued either by the State Government or by an officer authorised by the State Government directing that any notified premises shall be leased to any particular public authority or other person, then the Rent Controller shall subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (2) of S. 8. The proviso to sub-sec (2) lays down that where a direction is issued either by the State Government or by an officer authorised by the State Government directing that any notified premises shall be leased to any particular public authority or other person, then the Rent Controller shall subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (3) (4) and (5) make an order leasing out the notified premises in favour of such public authority or the person. Rule 5 of the Rules lays down the procedure to be followed in issuing direction under the proviso to sub-sec. (2) of S. 8. Sub-sec. (3) of S. 8 provides that in considering the causes, if any shown by the landlord or other person in possession of the notified premises, the Rent controller shall, in case the premises to be leased is part of a building, give due regard to the customs, manner and social convention of the persons occupying the remaining portion of the building in so far as such customs manners and social functions are not opposed to law, public order, moment or health. Sub-sec. (4) lavs do that if after considering the cau^e^. if any, shown by the landlord or other person in possession of the buildin the Rent Controller is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do, he may, by an order in writing, directing the building to be leased to such public authority or other person specified in the notice under sub-sec (1 ). ( 9 ) ON a perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it seems to me obvious that the Rent Controller is required to consider the causes, if any shown by the landlord or other person in possesion of the notified premises before making an order of leasing out the notified premises, even where a direction is issued by the competent authority under the proviso to sub-sec. (2) of s. 8. This is made, clear under the proviso to sub-sec. (2) of S. 8 where it is stipulated that on receipt of a direction by the competent authority, directing to lease out the notified premises in favour of a particular public authority or other person, the Rent controller shall, subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (2) of s. 8. This is made, clear under the proviso to sub-sec. (2) of S. 8 where it is stipulated that on receipt of a direction by the competent authority, directing to lease out the notified premises in favour of a particular public authority or other person, the Rent controller shall, subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (3), (4) and (5), make an order leasing out the; notified premises in favour of such public authority or officer in whose favour the direction was issued. The mere fact that a direction was issued by the competent authority as provided under the proviso to sub-sec. (2) of S. 8, the rent Controller could not abdicate himself of the powers vested in him under sub-sees. (3), (4) and (5) in considering the causes, if any, shown by the landlord or other person in possession of the notified premises before making an order of leasing out the notified premises. No doubt the 2nd respondent, in his order under challenge, considered the claim of the pettioner to release 7 rooms out of the 33 rooms in the first floor which were notified for allotment and rejected the same advancing his own reasons, but he had not considered the cause advanced, by the petitioner against the allotment of the premises to the 1st respondent to run a boys hostel but on the other hand, straightaway passed the order of allotment solely and exclusively on the strength of the direction issued by the deputy Commissioner in favour of the 1st respondent. Further, rule 5 of the rules does not stipulate consideration of any of the causes shown by the landlord or the person in possession of the notified premises against the leasing out of the same before issuing direction. The direction to be issued under the proviso to sub-sec. (2) of S. 8 on the basis of the guidelines provided under Rule 5, in my opinion, would be a mere administrative order and the Deputy commissioner, as an appellate authority under sec. 12 of the Act against the order passed by the 2nd respondent, is required to consider the correctness or otherwise of the order appealed against, in exercise of his judicial function. For the reasons aforesaid, i am of the considered opinion that the mere fact that the Deputy Commissioner had issued a direction as contemplated under the proviso to sub- sec. For the reasons aforesaid, i am of the considered opinion that the mere fact that the Deputy Commissioner had issued a direction as contemplated under the proviso to sub- sec. (2) of S. 8, it would not be futile to approach him for revising the order passed by the 2nd respondent as an appellate authority under S. 12 of the act. I do not find any exceptional circumstances in the instant case to enable the petitioner to approach this court seeking the discretionary remedy under Art. 226 of the Constitution without exhausting the statutory remedy provided under the Act. ( 10 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I find no grounds to issue rule in this petition. Accordingly, it is rejected at the preliminary hearing stage. --- *** --- .