JUDGMENT 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners pray for quashing the judgment and order dated 721980, passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Varanasi. 2. Shiv Prasad Chaudhary, respondent no 2, made anapplication for.allotment of one room and an adjacent tinshed, on the first floor of house no. D50/14C3A situate in Varanasi, under the provision of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation, of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (Briefly the 'Act'). He alleged that it was in illegal occupation of one Rajendra Prasad Pal. The petitioner's nos. 2 to 8 sold the premises to petitioner no. 1. The owners filed an objection to the allotment application and contended that Rajendra Prasad Pal was a licensee for a period of three weeks only. It was also said that possession of the entire house, including the accommodation on the first floor, was handed over to the purchaser at the time of the sale deed. The transfereeowner also made an application for sole use of the portion on the first floor. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer observed that, admittedly, the transferee owner bad obtained vacant possession over the entire house from the previous owners and, therefore, there was no need to make an application for release. He dismissed the allotment application of Shiv Prasad Chaudhary. 3. Aggrieved, Shiv Prasad Chaudhary filed a revision, which was decided by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Varanasi. The learned Judge observed that the view of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the accommodation did not remain vacant for allotment as it was sold, by the previous owner to the new owner, was not correct. The change of ownership did not change the nature of the accommodation. He, therefore, set aside the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and sent back the case to that officer for deciding the release application as well as the allotment application afresh. 4. This order has been challenged in this writ petition. Service on Shiv Prasad Chaudhary, respondent no. 2, has been taken as sufficient under Chapter VIII, Rule 12 of the Rules of Court. No one has appeared on his behalf to contest this writ petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. This order has been challenged in this writ petition. Service on Shiv Prasad Chaudhary, respondent no. 2, has been taken as sufficient under Chapter VIII, Rule 12 of the Rules of Court. No one has appeared on his behalf to contest this writ petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned counsel has urged that the view of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that since the transfereeowner had got vacant possession of entire house including the first floor from the previous owner, there was no need to make application for release, was correct, and the view of the Additional District Judge that the change of ownership did not change the nature of the accommodation, was notcorrect. At the time of the sale of the premises to petitioner no. 1, possession over the entire premises including the first floor, was handed over to him. Therefore, it could not be said that the first floor was vacant and available for allotment. In support of this contention the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision Smt. Parmeshwari Devi v. Jagdish Sharma ( 1976 AWC 703 ). 6. I have carefully gone through the aforesaid decision. In that case the previous owner had sold the house on 25.6.1974 and put the transferee in possession of the entire house. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed allotment order in favour of Jagdish Sharma on 18.7.1974. The owner challenged this order by way of an appeal which was dismissed. The owner came to this court in writ jurisdiction. This Court held that if a tenant was in occupation of a portion of the premises, the previous owner could not enter into possession of the said portion without obtaining a release order in his favour under section 16(2) of the Act. Merely because the owner was in possession of such premises, his possession in respect of such portion could not be considered legal. With regard to the portion which was admittedly in use and occupation of the previous owner, the view taken by this court was that on sale of the premises the previous owner could transfer possession over such portion to the purchaser, and it could not be said that that portion had fallen vacant. With regard to the portion which was admittedly in use and occupation of the previous owner, the view taken by this court was that on sale of the premises the previous owner could transfer possession over such portion to the purchaser, and it could not be said that that portion had fallen vacant. This decision supports the view takes by the learned Additional District Judge that mere change of ownership could not change the nature of the accommodation in respect of which application for allotment was made. The view taken by the learned Additional District Judge was not legally erroneous. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, next, submitted that towards the end of the judgment the learned Additional District Judge had made a passing observation that it was clear that the one room accommodation was vacant. This observation could be construed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as final finding on the question of vacancy. The said Officer had disposed of the release application and the application for allotment mainly on the ground that since the transferee had obtained vacant possession over the entire premises there was no need to make an application for release. Since the matter has been remanded for afresh decision of the release application and the allotment application, the said Officer should consider the question of vacancy as well. I think, his submission of the learned counsel is well founded. 8. In view of the above, the order of remand doss not require interference. 9. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is directed that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer shall also bear in mind the observations contained in this judgment while deciding there lease application and the application for c allotment. There will be no order as to costs. (Petition dismissed)