JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. - The dispute in this petition pertains to vacancy, allotment and release of residential accommodation under the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, No. 13 of 1972, for short the Act. 2. The Petitioner Sri. Swaroop Narain Srivastava is the owner of house No. 395/31 Raj Bhawan, Kashmiri Mohalla, Police Station Saadatganj, Lucknow. A portion of this house was in the tenancy of Sri. Sita Ram Sakhya who died leaving his surviving Respondents 2 to 4 and Dr. R.R.P. Singh and Sri. J.P. Singh who succeeded to the tenancy rights. Dr. R.R.P. Singh obtained allotment order in respect of a house situate in the same locality under the provisions of the Act. Thereupon the landlord Petitioner moved an application before the District Supply Officer (Rent Control), Lucknow, asserting therein that the premises is to be deemed to have fallen vacant u/s 12 of the Act and praying for release thereof in his favour u/s 16(1)(a) of the Act. This application was opposed by the widow of the deceased-tenant who pleaded that at the time of the death of Sri. Sita Ram Sakhya, Dr. R.R.P. Singh was not normally residing in the premises in question and, therefore, on the allotment of a house in his favour the disputed premises could not be said to have fallen vacant. By order dated 27-7-1977 the application of the landlord was rejected with the finding that the premises was not vacant. Against this order the Petitioner landlord preferred revision before the District Judge, Lucknow. which came up for hearing before the First Additional District Judge who, by his judgment and order dated 26-5-1979 Annexure 3, set aside the order dated 27-7-1977 and remanded the case to the trial authority. The learned Additional District Judge held that Dr. R.R.P. Singh was normally residing with the deceased-tenant and, therefore, the premises was to be deemed to have fallen vacant. The remand was made for disposal of the landlord's application for release. Against this order the widow of the deceased-tenant preferred writ petition in this Court. The question whether on the facts and circumstances of the case vacancy had occurred, was referred to a Full Bench. The remand was made for disposal of the landlord's application for release. Against this order the widow of the deceased-tenant preferred writ petition in this Court. The question whether on the facts and circumstances of the case vacancy had occurred, was referred to a Full Bench. After opinion had been recorded by the Full Bench, the petition came up for final hearing before K.N. Goyal, J. who by his judgment and order dated 23-4-1981 Annexure 4, dismissed the writ petition in accordance with the opinion given by the Full Bench. Thereafter on 1-5-1981 an application was made by the widow of the deceased-tenant and her two sons Sri. S.P. Singh and Sri. C.P. Singh under Rule 10(6) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, for short Rules. In this application they prayed that the accommodation in dispute may be realloted to them. In making this application they relied upon certain observations made by the Full Bench in the writ petition hereinbefore referred to. After remand the trial authority first took up for consideration the landlord's application for release and came to the conclusion that the same had not been made with an ulterior motive and the landlord has succeeded in establishing his requirement for the premises. With this observation he released the accommodation in favour of the Petitioner landlord and consigned the application for reallotment to records. A copy of this order dated 24-8-1982 is Annexure No. 6. Against this order the applicants for reallotment preferred revision before the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge observed that on the facts of the present case Rule 13(4) was not applicable and, therefore, the trial authority committed jurisdictional error in taking up the landlord's application for release first and consigning the application for reallotment as infructuous after releasing the accommodation in favour of the landlord. According to the revisional authority the matter of reallotment was distinct from allotment and an application for reallotment was required to be given precedence over landlord's application for release. This order of the revisional Court, dated 15-12-1982 Annexure 7, has been challenged through the present writ petition. The Petitioner in the petition is the landlord whose contention is that in view of the specific provisions made in Rule 13(4), there was no occasion to require the trial authority to give precedence to the application for reallotment. This order of the revisional Court, dated 15-12-1982 Annexure 7, has been challenged through the present writ petition. The Petitioner in the petition is the landlord whose contention is that in view of the specific provisions made in Rule 13(4), there was no occasion to require the trial authority to give precedence to the application for reallotment. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner there was no difference between an application for allotment and an application for reallotment and the distinction tried to be drawn by the Court below is illusory. 3 Sri. R.C. Bajpai appearing on behalf of the Respondents argued that Rule 10(6)(b) is a Regularisation provision and, therefore Rule 13(4) cannot be applied to a case covered by the said provision. 4. In order to appreciate the arguments the scheme of the Act and the Rules may be examined. Chapter III of the Act deals with Regulation of Letting. Sub-section (1) of Section 12 falling under this Chapter refers to the circumstances when a building may be deemed to be vacant. The circumstances are enumerated in Clauses (a) and (b). None of these clauses is attracted in the present case. Sub-section (3) also provides for a situation where a building, although not actually vacant, may be deemed to be vacant. One of the circumstances enumerated in Sub-section (3) is when a tenant or any member of his family acquires in a vacant state a residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area in which the building under tenancy is situate. It is in view of the provision contained in Sub-section (3) that it was pressed by the landlord Petitioner that the premises had fallen vacant on account of Dr. R.R.P. Singh obtaining allotment order in respect of another accommodation in the same locality. The finding of vacancy has already become final by the judgment and order passed by Hon'ble K.N. Goyal, J. in the writ petition referred to hereinabove. Section 13 provides that where a landlord or tenant has ceased to occupy a building or part thereof, no person shall occupy it in any capacity on his behalf, or otherwise than under an order of allotment or release u/s 16, and if a person so purports to occupy it, he shall, without prejudice to the provisions of Section 31, be deemed to be an unauthorised occupant of such building or part. From this provision it is apparent that after a building has actually fallen vacant or is to be deemed to have fallen vacant, it can be occupied only under an order of allotment. Section 16 deals with allotment and release of vacant building. Sub-section (1) provides that the District Magistrate may by order require the landlord to let any building which is or has fallen vacant or is about to fall vacant. In Clause (b) of the same Sub-section it is provided that the District Magistrate may release the whole or any part of such building. Thereafter there is a proviso which enjoins upon the District Magistrate to give an opportunity to the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, of showing that the Section is not attracted to his case before making an order under Clause (a). Thus before making an allotment order under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16, the District Magistrate has to give opportunity of hearing to the landlord or the tenant, if there is any, in the premises. Section 17 prescribes the conditions of making allotment order. Section 19 deals with reallotment in the event of landlord abusing the release order. 5. Rule 8 deals with ascertainment of vacancy. Rule 10 provides for the procedure to be followed while making allotment order. Clause (d) of Sub rule (1) of Rule 10 requires the District Magistrate to maintain a Register of applications for allotment of buildings. Clause (c) provides for classification of the applications for allotment according to priority category specified in Rule 11. Under Sub-rule (4) fresh register is required to be prepared every year. Sub-rule (6) specifies the persons who are disqualified from obtaining allotment order for a specified period. Thereafter exceptions are provided through the proviso. Clause (c) provides for classification of the applications for allotment according to priority category specified in Rule 11. Under Sub-rule (4) fresh register is required to be prepared every year. Sub-rule (6) specifies the persons who are disqualified from obtaining allotment order for a specified period. Thereafter exceptions are provided through the proviso. Proviso (b) reads as follows: In the case of a residential building under the tenancy of a person who shall be deemed by virtue of Section 12(3) to have ceased to occupy it by reason of his or any member of his family building or otherwise acquiring in a vacant state or getting vacated another residential building in the same local area, whether that other building is built or acquired or got vacated before or after the date of commencement of the Act, if the District Magistrate is satisfied that the two buildings are occupied by the tenant and a member of his family separately, and that they are separate in messing, the District Magistrate may realloted the residential building deemed to be vacant u/s 12(4) to the said tenant or to the said member of his family, as the case may be. In view of the provision contained in Sub-rule (6) a person who is deemed to have ceased to occupy a building within the meaning of Section 12(1)(b), is disqualified from obtaining allotment for a period of two years but in view of proviso (b) he can apply for reallotment and the District Magistrate may realloted the premises in his favour if he is satisfied about the existence of the conditions specified in the clause. The District Magistrate is to be satisfied on two questions-(1) that two buildings are occupied by the tenant and a member of his family separately; and (2) that they are separate in messing. A reading of the above provision indicates that when the District Magistrate is satisfied that the family has split up into distinct units, it may allow one unit to occupy the accommodation which has been Subsequently acquired and the remaining unit or units may continue to occupy the building already in the tenancy. The necessity of acquiring another accommodation may arise for variety of reasons. It may arise when the size of the family swells up and the accommodation in tenancy becomes insufficient to accommodate all the members of the family. The necessity of acquiring another accommodation may arise for variety of reasons. It may arise when the size of the family swells up and the accommodation in tenancy becomes insufficient to accommodate all the members of the family. It may arise when a partition takes place and the partitioning units do not find it congenial to stay under one roof. Again partition may not take place yet the various members of the family may not be able to pull on together. In such a situation one member of the family either for reasons of peace of mind or for reasons of relieving congestion in the house may acquire another accommodation. In such a situation the purpose of acquiring new building would be lost if all the members who occupied the building under tenancy are also forced to go along with the member who has acquired another accommodation, and it would equally be harsh to leave that unit which has stayed back in the building under tenancy to be thrown out of that building. The situation may be tackled in two ways. Firstly it may be provided that in a situation like this the building will not be deemed to have fallen vacant. The hardship in such a situation would be that the unit which has separated and has acquired another accommodation would continue to be liable for payment of rent without enjoyment of property. Secondly, the building may be treated to be vacant and the occupation of those who remained in the building may be regularised by making a fresh allotment order in their favour so that the liability for payment of rent thereafter remains fastened only on those who are actually occupying the property. The situation is taken care of by the second proviso. In the circumstances I agree with the submission of Sri. Bajpai that proviso (b) to Sub-rule (6) of Rule 10 is a regularisation provision and is independent of Rule 13(4). In a case governed by the said provlsio, Rule 13(4) will have no application. As such, an application for reallotment will have precedence over the landlord's application for release. By taking a contrary view great hardship is likely to be caused to the unit which has remained in occupation of the building under tenancy and is faced with the threat of dispossession on account of one member of the family acquiring another accommodation. 6. As such, an application for reallotment will have precedence over the landlord's application for release. By taking a contrary view great hardship is likely to be caused to the unit which has remained in occupation of the building under tenancy and is faced with the threat of dispossession on account of one member of the family acquiring another accommodation. 6. The above view is reinforced if a few more provisions of the Rules are examined. Rule 11 prescribes the order of priority in allotment of residential buildings. The highest priority is given when building is required for public purposes. The second priority is prescribed in the following terms: Secondly, for accommodating a person against whom an order has been passed for eviction u/s 21, not being a tenant referred to in Explanation (1) to Section 21(1), or a decree has been passed in a suit filed with the permission of the District Magistrate u/s 3 of the old Act (or such suit or application is pending) and who or members of whose family do not own or hold as tenants any other residential building in the same city, municipality, town area or notified area. The third category is "for accommodating other"; this is the residuary category. An applicant for reallotment under proviso (b) to Sub-rule (6) of Rule 10 would not fall either under the first category or under the second category. Therefore, if the interpretation placed above is not accepted, an applicant for reallotment under the said proviso will have to take his chance under the residuary category. In other words he will have no priority in claim for allotment. He will be just like any other applicant for allotment. If this was the intention, there was no necessity of making a specific provision for such an applicant through the second proviso. Rule 12 is not material for the purposes of the present case. Rule 13 deals with release of vacant buildings. Sub-rule (1) provides for making an application for release and for stating therein the grounds on which release is sought. For the purposes of the present case Sub-rules (2) and (3) are not material. Rule 12 is not material for the purposes of the present case. Rule 13 deals with release of vacant buildings. Sub-rule (1) provides for making an application for release and for stating therein the grounds on which release is sought. For the purposes of the present case Sub-rules (2) and (3) are not material. Then comes the last Sub-rule of this Rule which runs as follows: Every application under this rule shall, as far as possible, be decided within one month from the date of its presentation, and no allotment in respect of a building covered by an application under this rule shall be made unless such application has been rejected (emphasis-herein in italics- supplied). In view of the emphasised operation in the above Sub-rule an order of allotment can be passed only after rejection of an application for release made under the rule. This provision, in my opinion, will be attracted only when the building has crossed the stage of Rule 10(6) proviso (b). Failure to prescribe apriority for an applicant for reallotment appears to be deliberate. The ommission is because of the fact that it is a distinct class covered by a distinct provision. On a consideration of the scheme of the Act and the Rules, I am of the opinion that it was not the intention of the authors of the Act and the Rules that an applicant for reallotment under the second proviso should be treated like any other applicant for allotment. His is a special case and is governed by a distinct provision and is not governed by Rule 13(4). In this view of the matter lam of the opinion that the judgment of the learned District Judge does not call for any interference. 7. In view of the above, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Stay order, if any, shall stand discharged. Since the petition is disposed of at the admission stage, no order is made as to costs.