JUDGMENT N.D. Ahuja, J. - The petitioner is the landlord of accommodation which was in the tenancy of a Post Office. The accommodation in question was vacated by the Post Office some time in August, 1979. An intimation was received by the petitioner in the third week of September, 1979 from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that applications for allotment of the aforesaid accommodation will be received up to 25th September, 1979. It appears that an order of declaring vacancy had already been passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. On 25th September, 1979 an application was made on behalf of the petitioner for one months' time to the file objection against the order of declaration of vacancy. However, only a fortnight time was granted and 11th October, 1979 was fixed apparently for further proceedings in the matter. However, even before the time which had been granted to the petitioner for filing the objection had expired an order of allotment was passed in respect of the accommodation in question in favour of Sushil Kumar Sharma respondent No. 2 on 27th September, 1979, notice was received by the petitioner on 27th September, 1979. 2. It appears that 30th September, 1979 to 2nd October, 1979 were holidays for Dashahra and birthday of Mahatma Gandhi. On 3rd October, 1979 the petitioner filed a revision before the District Judge against the order of allotment dated 27th September, 1979 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotting the accommodation in question in favour of respondent No. 2. On the same day he filed an application for review before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as also for releasing the accommodation in question in his favour. The revision filed by the petitioner was admitted by the District Judge and interim order saying the operation of the order dated 17th September, 1979 was passed. However, respondent No. 2 put in appearance and the interim order of stay was vacated by the District Judge the very next day namely, on 4th October, 1979. The revision filed by the petitioner was ultimately allowed on 10th December, 1979 and the order of allotment dated 27th September, 1979 was set-aside by the District Judge. That order was challenged by respondent No. 2 before the Code in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10236 of 1979 which was dismissed on 17th April, 1980. The revision filed by the petitioner was ultimately allowed on 10th December, 1979 and the order of allotment dated 27th September, 1979 was set-aside by the District Judge. That order was challenged by respondent No. 2 before the Code in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10236 of 1979 which was dismissed on 17th April, 1980. Thereafter, an application was made by the petitioner on 28th April, 1980 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Section 18(3) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as to the Act) with a prayer that the petitioner may be put back in possession over the accommodation in question the order of allotment in favour of respondent No. 2 under Section 16 of the Act having been rescinded. It has been stated in paragraph 21 of the writ petition that no order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the application dated 28th April, 1980 till 4th September, 1980 when another application had to be made with the same prayer. 3. The application made by the petitioner were opposed by respondent No. 2 on the ground that it was expedient that till final orders were passed on the application for release and allotment he should be allowed to continue in possession over the accommodation in question inasmuch as there was apprehension that the petitioner on getting possession over the said accommodation may demolish the same. The objection taken by respondent No. 2 found favour with the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and he took the view that till the application for release and allotment were finally decided it was expedient to permit respondent No. 2 to continue in occupation of the accommodation in question, notwithstanding the fact that the order of allotment passed in his favour under Section 16 of the Act has been rescinded. On this finding the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dismissed the two application dated 28th April, 1980 and 4th September, 1980 filed by the petitioner by this order dated 6th March, 1981. It is this order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer which is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition. 4. On this finding the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dismissed the two application dated 28th April, 1980 and 4th September, 1980 filed by the petitioner by this order dated 6th March, 1981. It is this order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer which is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition. 4. It has been urged by counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of Section 18(3) of the Act were mandatory in nature and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has committed manifest error of law in dismissing the application made by the petitioner for being put back in possession over the accommodation in question under the said Section 18(3) of the Act consequent upon the order of allotment passed in favour of respondent No. 2 under Section 16 of the Act being rescinded. On behalf of respondent No. 2 on the other hand, it has been urged by this counsel that Section 18(3) of the Act applied only to those cases were the landlord was in actual physical possession over an accommodation before the order of allotment which was subsequently rescinded had been passed and possession delivered to the allottee in pursuance of such order of allotment. 5. So far as the submission made by counsel for respondent No. 2 is concerned the case of the petitioner is that the accommodation in question constitutes the ground floor of a house, the first floor whereof is admittedly occupied by petitioner of his residential purpose and that on the accommodation in question on the ground floor being vacated by the Post Office the petitioner had come in actual physical possession over the same and on the interim order of stay being vacated by the District Judge on the 4th October, 1980 respondent No. 2 had taken possession over the said accommodation. It appears that the point urged by counsel for respondent No. 2 before this Court was not raised before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer inasmuch as the impugned order is silent about it. It appears that the point urged by counsel for respondent No. 2 before this Court was not raised before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer inasmuch as the impugned order is silent about it. Even without going into the question I am of opinion that even if for the sake of argument it may be accepted that the petitioner was not in actual physical possession over the accommodation in question when possession thereof was taken by respondent No. 2 it would make no difference and Section 18(3) of the Act would still apply and the petitioner would be entitled to be put back in possession over the accommodation in question on the order of allotment passed in favour of respondent No. 2 under Section 16 of the Act being rescinded. 6. It is settled law that on an accommodation being vacated by its tenant the landlord, as owner of the building is entitled to remain in possession over the said accommodation subject to any order of allotment being passing passed under the Act in favour of some other person. This would be so even if no order of release had been passed in favour of the landlord, inasmuch as an accommodation being vacated by a tenant the said accommodation cannot be permitted to remain in the position of a no mans' land till either an order of allotment or release is passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. There is no provision in the Act reliance on which could be placed for creating such an anomalous situation. As already pointed landlord is entitled to remain in possession over it on its being vacated by the tenant till an order of allotment is passed in favour of the some person. 7. There is no provision in the Act reliance on which could be placed for creating such an anomalous situation. As already pointed landlord is entitled to remain in possession over it on its being vacated by the tenant till an order of allotment is passed in favour of the some person. 7. It is true that notwithstanding the actual physical possession of the landlord the accommodation in question would, unless an order of release has been passed in favour of the landlord, be available for allotment but this legal position in no way militates against the right of the landlord to remain in actual physical possession over his property on its being vacated by the tenant till an order of allotment or release, as the case may be, is passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and on an order of allotment passed under Section 16 of the Act being rescinded the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is under an obligation or duty to place the parties in the position which they would have occupied but for the order of allotment of an application is made to him in this behalf. Had the order of allotment dated 27th September, 1979 in favour of respondent No. 2 which was subsequently rescinded not been passed, respondent No. 2 would not have been entitled to occupy the accommodation in question and the petitioner by virtue of being its owner was entitled to remain in its actual physical possession till an order of allotment or release, as the case may be, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. On the facts of the instant case placing the parties back in the position which they would have occupied but for the aforesaid order of allotment, as contemplated by Section 18(3) of the Act would be get the accommodation in question vacated from respondent No. 2 and put the petitioner in actual physical possession over the same and to allow him to occupy the same in his capacity of being the owner thereof till an order of allotment or release is passed. Of course, if an order of release is passed the landlord would necessarily continue in possession in pursuance of the order of release. Of course, if an order of release is passed the landlord would necessarily continue in possession in pursuance of the order of release. However, if the application for release is dismissed and the accommodation is allotted in favour of some other person it is then and then alone that the petitioner will be required to vacate the accommodation in question and hand over its possession to the allottee. If authority were needed for the proposition of law referred to above, reference may be made to Yogendra Sahai Raizada v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Manipuri and others 1982(1) Alld. Rent Cases 550, Zaheer Ahmad v. Mohd. Askari and others 1981 Alld. Rent Cases 490, Smt. Saraswati v . IVth Additional District Judge, 1979 (U.P.) R.C.C. 266 and Girish Dutt Chandola v. The District Magistrate, Meerut and others, 1977 Alld. Rent Cases 396. 8. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 6th March, 1981 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Ballia respondent No. 1 is quashed and he is directed to put the petitioner in actual physical possession over the accommodation in question after getting it vacated from respondent No. 2 as contemplated by Section 18(3) of Act. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs from respondent No. 2.