JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon, J. - This petition, at the instance of an applicant for the allotment of an accommodation, is directed against an order dated 6th October, 1982, passed by the land Additional District Judge, Aligarh, who, by the same order, dismissed three revision applications. These applications have been made by three different persons including the Petitioner whose applications for the allotment of the said accommodation had been rejected. 2. The Petitioner, on 8th March, 1982, made an application to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (hereinafter referred to as the Eviction Officer) for the allotment of the said accommodation to him. The application bore the following endorsement of the landlord Sri After Ahmad Khan, the Respondent No. 2: Strongly recommended for favorable consideration and allotment. It appears, Smt. Kahkashan Parvin, the Respondent No. 3 also made an application for the allotment of the said accommodation at some point of time posterior to the date of the application of the Petitioner. The landlord, on 12th March, 1982, gave a formal intimation of the vacancy of the accommodation to the Eviction Officer. On 7th April, 1982, he made an application to the Eviction Officer containing the following prayer: It is, therefore, prayed that the court be pleased to make an allotment of the accommodation in question in favor of the applicant Sri Agha Sajid Ali Shah aforesaid, who has been delivered vacant possession of the said accommodation on tenancy basis. 3. The accommodation was allotted on 8th April, 1982, to one Jamil Ahmad who, it appears, refused to occupy the same for some reason or the other. Thereafter, on 22nd July, 1982, the said accommodation was allotted to the Respondent No. 3. The Petitioner and two other applicants felt aggrieved went up in separate revisions and their revisions have been disposed of by the impugned order. The learned Additional District Judge, acting as a revision authority, has not given the benefit to the Petitioner of the nomination made by the landlord in his favor on the ground that the same had not been made in proper manner. Before going into this question a short controversy may be disposed of. In the impugned order the revisional authority has proceeded on the assumption that Sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable. Before going into this question a short controversy may be disposed of. In the impugned order the revisional authority has proceeded on the assumption that Sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn my attention to the averments made in the writ petition as also to the application made by the landlord nominating the Petitioner as the prospective tenant and on the basis of these materials he has contended that really the controversy was to be resolved on the basis of the provisions as contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 17 and not Sub-section (2). In the application made by the landlord to the Eviction Officer nominating the Petitioner there is not even a whisper that he is in occupation of a portion of the accommodation in dispute. We have, therefore to proceed on the assumption that really Sub-section (1) of Section 17 was to be taken into account. 4. Neither in Section 17 of the Act nor in Rule 10 of the Rules framed under the Act there is any prescribed form or procedure for nominating a tenant by a landlord. It is well known that pith and substance of the matter should be looked into and not the form. Here, the endorsement made by the landlord upon the application made by the Petitioner on 8th March, 1982, was clear and explicit. This was followed up by the application, the prayer to which has already been extracted above. I am satisfied that the landlord made his intention absolutely clear and unequivocal that the accommodation in dispute should be allotted to the Petitioner. The revisional authority has misapplied and misinterpreted the provisions of Section 17 and Rule 10 in taking the view that the nomination made by the landlord is not in the proper form. The order, therefore is not sustainable on this ground. 5. The question is: What should be the proper order passed by this Court? It appears from the application made by the landlord to the Eviction Officer nominating the Petitioner that since 1982 the Petitioner is in possession of the accommodation in dispute. We are now in the year 1985. No useful purpose will be served by sending the case back to the revisional court for giving a fresh decision. Now the stage has arrived when these proceedings should attain some finality. We are now in the year 1985. No useful purpose will be served by sending the case back to the revisional court for giving a fresh decision. Now the stage has arrived when these proceedings should attain some finality. 6. This petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 22nd July, 1982, passed by the Eviction Officer and as confirmed by the impugned order dated 6th October, 1982, passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Aligarh, are quashed. The Respondents are directed to treat the Petitioner as an allotted of the accommodation in dispute. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.