JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. 1. The petitioner is the landlord of an accommodation and is a deity. Its mohatmin is one Sri Amar Nath. The accommodation in question was allotted to the respondent no. 3 by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mathura, under Section 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 1141979. On coming to know of this order of allotment the petitioner filed a revision before the District Judge, under Section 18 of the Act. The case of the petitioner was that the proceedings for declaration of vacancy of the accommodation in question were taken behind its back without serving any notice upon its mohatmin Sri Amar Nath. It also asserted that no notice was given to the said Sri Amar Nath, even of the date of passing the order of allotment. Another plea which was raised by the petitioner was that the accommodation in question had been constructed recently and since ten years from the date of its construction had not expired, the Act was not applicable to it and it could not be allotted in favour of respondent No. 3. The District Judge dismissed the revision by his order dated 21st January, 1980 passed by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer, Mathura and the District Judge, Mathura respectively which are sought to be quashed in the present writ petition. 2. It was urged by the counsel for the petitioner that Sri Amar Nath, the Mohatmin of the petitioner deity, was at the relevant time working as Assistant Manager, Delhi State Industrial Corporation and was, in that connection, residing at New Delhi and yet the notices meant to be served on him were sent not at his Delhi address but at the address of the premises in question, at Mathura. According to the counsel for the petitioner, in this view of the matter, the impugned order of allotment was vitiated in law for noncompliance of the relevant provisions in this behalf, in Rule 8 and Rule 9 (3) of the Rules framed under the Act. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, in this view of the matter, the impugned order of allotment was vitiated in law for noncompliance of the relevant provisions in this behalf, in Rule 8 and Rule 9 (3) of the Rules framed under the Act. 3. It has also been urged by him that from the material on record it was established that ten years had not yet expired from the date of the construction of the accommodation in question when the impugned order of allotment was passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, in favour of the respondent No. 3. It has been urged by his counsel that since the Delhi address of Sri Amar Nath was not known either to respondent No. 3 or to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the notices could but be sent only on the address of the accommodation in question at Mathura, and it was clear from the various reports referred to in the impugned order passed by the District Judge that Sri Amar Nath was avoiding service of notice. 4. Having considered the respective submissions made by the counsel for the parties 1 am of the opinion that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. As regards the first question as to whether notice of the proceedings had been sufficiently served on Sri Amar Nath, reference may be made to Annexure III to the writ petition which is copy of the report dated 1st February, 1979 submitted by the Senior Inspector of the office of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. It indicates that he went to make an inspection of the accommodation in question and was informed by Smt. Ram Dulari, who, it is not disputed, is the mother of Sri Amar Nath, that ten years had not yet expired from the date of the construction of the accommodation in question and, if necessary, evidence could be produced in this behalf. This report further indicated that Mohatmin, Sri Amar Nath, could not be contacted inasmuch as he was reported to be residing at Delhi. The report does not indicate that the Inspector made any inquiry from Smt. Ram Dulari about the Delhi address of Sri Amar Nath and Smt. Ram Dulari declined to give that address. This report further indicated that Mohatmin, Sri Amar Nath, could not be contacted inasmuch as he was reported to be residing at Delhi. The report does not indicate that the Inspector made any inquiry from Smt. Ram Dulari about the Delhi address of Sri Amar Nath and Smt. Ram Dulari declined to give that address. It appears that the accommodation in question was earlier owned by Smt. Ram Dulari but subsequently she made an endowment thereof to the petitioner deity. After the accommodation in question had been endowed by Smt. Ram Dulari, she apparently lost her proprietary interest in the said accommodation and any notice which was sought to be served on the petitioner had to be served on its Mohatmin or Mutwalli. Even on being told that the Mohatmin was residing at Delhi, neither the Inspector nor even the Rent Control and Eviction Officer made any attempt to find out his Delhi address and to contact him on that address. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, on the other hand, chose to issue notices to Sri Amar Nath on the address of the accommodation in question even though it was known that he was not residing there. That the relevant requirements of Rule 8 about giving notice in the matter of declaring vacancy, as also the requirement of Rule 9(3), are mandatory, is a proposition of law which is well settled and admits of no doubt. In view of what has been pointed out above, it is apparent that no serious attempt was made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to comply with the aforesaid mandatory requirements of law. 5. In regard to the second question relating to the date of the construction of the accommodation in question, it may be pointed out that the notice issued by the Municipal Board, Mathura, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure I to the writ petition, and the assessment list, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure II to the writ petition, indicate that earlier there were two godowns. One of these two godowns was demolished and in its place three rooms, one kitchen, a latrine and a bathroom were constructed. This is the accommodation which has been allotted to the respondent No. 3. One of these two godowns was demolished and in its place three rooms, one kitchen, a latrine and a bathroom were constructed. This is the accommodation which has been allotted to the respondent No. 3. Notice Annexure I seems to have been issued in the year 1979 and required the petitioner to file objection against the proposed assessment of the accommodation in question. It is true that on the top of the assessment list, Annexure II, the words Ward No. 4 san 1970 are mentioned but on page 2 thereof, below the columns 11 and 12 two dates are mentioned, being 30th March, 1979 and 1st April, 1979. On their basis it was urged by the counsel for the petitioner that the accommodation in question was proved to have been constructed near about the year 1979 and since ten years from the date of its construction had not yet expired the provisions of the Act will not be applicable to it and the order of allotment is without jurisdiction. These two annexures primafacie support the contention of the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent no. 3, has, however, brought to my notice that in regard to Annexure II to the writ petition the District Judge has expressed a doubt about its genuineness. It is not possible for this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to go into this question of fact. As such, I wish to make it clear that I should not be deemed to have expressed any opinion on the merits of this question. What appears prima facie from Annexure I and II to the writ petition is open to be rebutted by respondent No. 3. A perusal of the order of the District Judge indicates that he decided this question without either giving full opportunity to the parties to produce relevant evidence on this point before him, or remanding the case to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for deciding the said question. The fact that ten years had not expired from the date on which the accommodation in question was constructed, was emphasised at the very initial stage by Smt Ram Dulari, as is apparent from the report of the Senior Inspector already referred to above. The fact that ten years had not expired from the date on which the accommodation in question was constructed, was emphasised at the very initial stage by Smt Ram Dulari, as is apparent from the report of the Senior Inspector already referred to above. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer was, thus, aware even from the report of his own Inspector that the accommodation in question was stated to have been constructed within ten years of the date on which the Inspector went on the spot to make inquiry. In this view of the matter, he should have taken precaution to see to it that the petitioner was served through its Mohatmin on his proper address so that relevant evidence could be produced in regard to the date of the construction of the said accommodation. He, however, apparently failed to do so. Since the question in regard to the date on which the construction of the accommodation in question will be deemed to have been completed within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act is a question to be decided on evidence, I am of the opinion that this question should be decided by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in place of the District Judge, who exercises only limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. 6. Before parting with the case it may be pointed out that since respondent No. 3 had admittedly taken possession of the accommodation in question in pursuance of the impugned order of allotment, it is a fit case in which his possession may not be disturbed till final orders are passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in pursuance of this order. 7. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 11th April, 1979 and 21st January, 1980 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the District Judge, Mathura, respectively, are quashed and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mathura, is directed to decide the application made by respondent No. 3 for allotment of the accommodation is question afresh in accordance with law expeditiously, after giving the petitioner an opportunity to file his objection, and to the parties to produce evidence in support of their respective cases. The respondent No. 3, however shall not be dispossessed from the accommodation in question till final orders are passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mathura afresh on the application for allotment made by respondent No. 3 in pursuance of this order. In the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs. (Petition allowed)