JUDGMENT V.K. Mehrotra, J. - Sri Babu Ram Awasthi was a practising Advocate who started practice at Allahabad around the year 1932. Sometimes in the year 1942 he took a portion of Bungalow No. 23, Hamilton Road, George Town, Allahabad on rent as a tenant, Smt. Kunwar Kishori Razdan is the landlady owning the house. She lives at Ujjain in Madhya Pradesh. Babu Ram Awasthi decided to retire from active practice on account of old age. This was in the year 1972. At one stage he thought of leaving Allahabad. He informed the land-lady about it. It appears, however, that he changed his mind. He is said to have illegally sub-let a portion of the accommodation in his possession to one Gaya Prasad Yadav, Advocate without obtaining any permission from the District Magistrate or the consent of the landlady. 2. On November 18, 1972 Gaya Prasad Yadav made an application for allotment of that portion saying that he has been left in possession thereof by Babu Ram Awasthi on behalf of the landlady and was continuously living therein since 1971. When the Rent Control and Eviction Officer issued a notice to the landlady she filed an objection saying that the portion was sub-let illegally by Sri Babu Ram Awasthi. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, however, concluded that Gaya Prasad Yadav was in possession ol the portion since 1971 with the consent of one Maqbool Hasan, agent of the landlady. He declared the possession of Gaya Prasad Yadav as authorised by law by order dated July 12, 1973. This order was set aside by this Court in Writ No. 7074 of 197' filed by the landlady. In this writ petition Sri Babu Ram Awasthi was impleaded as a Respondent. He had filed an objection in which he said that Gaya Prasad Yadav was not his sub-tenant but had, as a matter of fact, been permitted to live in the portion for a short period as he had been thrown out from his house. This assertion was noticed by the learned Single Judge in his judgment of July 10, i975. Gaya Prasad Yadav filed Special Appeal No. 2 of 1975 against this judgment which was dismissed by this Court on March 3, 1976. The judgment of the single Judge was affirmed. 3. This assertion was noticed by the learned Single Judge in his judgment of July 10, i975. Gaya Prasad Yadav filed Special Appeal No. 2 of 1975 against this judgment which was dismissed by this Court on March 3, 1976. The judgment of the single Judge was affirmed. 3. In the year 1977 the landlady filed an application for release of the accommodation in the tenancy of Babu Ram Awasihi u/s 21 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. This was registered as case No. 17 of 1977 before the Prescribed Authority. Sri Babu Ram Awasthi filed an objection dated December 3, 1977 in it. He denied that he had vacated the premises or that he had permitted a stranger to live in it. He also denied the bonafide need of the landlady. He further said that he was doing chamber practice and that his sons and daughters continued to visit and reside with him. Also that he was living at that time at Bangalore in connection with his treatment though the entire house-hold material was still lying in the house in dispute. these assertions were re-iterated in an affidavit sworn by Babu Ram Awasthi at Bangalore on November 13, 1978. 4. Babu Ram Awasthi died on May 3, 1979. One of his sons G.K. Awasthi was transferred to Allahabad under an order dated May 26, 1979. The landlady made an application in Case No. 17 of 1979 for substituting the heirs of Sri Babu Kam Awasihi in his place in the proceedings. Through this application Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi and the four sons, namely, Sri Krishna Awasihi. Ba' Krishna Awasthi. Gopal Krishna and Ajai Krishna were sought to be brought on the record as legal representatives of Babu Ram Awasthi. The application was supported by an affidavit sworn by the landlady. Both in the application and the affidavit it was said that the fact that Sri Babu Ram Awasthi had died on May 3, 1979 came to the knowledge of the landlady on July 6, 1979. 5. On August 4, 1979 Dr. B.K. Awasthi, one of the sons of Babu Ram remitted rent of the premises for the period ending July 31, 1979 through a Bank Draft for Rs. 612/- to the landlady on behalf of his mother. 5. On August 4, 1979 Dr. B.K. Awasthi, one of the sons of Babu Ram remitted rent of the premises for the period ending July 31, 1979 through a Bank Draft for Rs. 612/- to the landlady on behalf of his mother. This was ackno fledged on behalf of the landlady in her letter of August 16, 1979 by Sri S.N. Razdan addressed to Dr. Awasthi. It was also mentioned in that letter that furture remittance be made payable at the State Bank of India, Madhav Nagar Branch, Uijain. One Smt. Bimla Kapoor wished to purchase a piece of land, which was not in the tenancy of Babu Ram Awasthi, forming pare of 23 Hamilton Road, Allahabad. On being informed that the house had fallen vacant she made an application for allotment of the house which was in the tenancy of Babu Kam Awasthi. This was on August 27, 1979. The application was registered as Case No. 491 of 1979. On September 6, 1979, an objection was filed by G.K. Awasthi, one of the sons of Sri Babu Ram Awasthi, saying that there was no vacancy as alleged. A local inspection was made by the Senior Inspector of Rent Control of the premises on October 3, 1979 Under Rule 8(2) of the Rules framed under U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Sri G.K. Awasthi was present at that time. On January 2, 1981, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad passed a detailed order in Case No. 491 of 1979 declaring that the disputed portion of the house was vacant. On January 5, 1981 Smt. Vimla Kapoor addressed a letter to Air Marshal Latif. the then Chief of the Indian Air Force. In it, she mentioned that she had entered into an agreement for purchase of the property with the landlady who was fed up with the tactics of the family of Babu Ram Awasthi to grab the property and had decided to sell it. She requested that G. K. Awasthi, who was an Officer in the Indian Air Force, be posted away from Allahabad while his brother A.K. Awasthi, another Officer in the Indian Air Force be not posted of Allahabad. On January 20, 1981 the landlady made an application in case No. 17 of 1977. She requested that G. K. Awasthi, who was an Officer in the Indian Air Force, be posted away from Allahabad while his brother A.K. Awasthi, another Officer in the Indian Air Force be not posted of Allahabad. On January 20, 1981 the landlady made an application in case No. 17 of 1977. She said that, inasmuch as, an order had been passed on January 3, 1981 declaiing vacancy of the portion in question she did not wish to press her application u/s 21 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 which should be dismissed as not pressed. On January 21, 1981 it was dismissed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as such. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer then passed an order on March ll, 1981 releasing the premises in favour of the landlady u/s 16. On March 19, 1981, the order was assailed by G. K. Awasthi in a revision u/s 18. The District Judge Allahabad who heard this revision, dismissed it on November 7, 1981. Gopal Krisnna Awasthi then filed writ petition No. 14229 of 1981 in this Court on November 26, 1981. He challenged the orders of January 2, 1981, March 11, 1981 and November 7, 1981. He also made an application for interim orders. This Court stayed his dispossession by an order of November 26, 1981 itself (which was later confirmed after hearing parties on September 6, 1982). 6. Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi, widow of Babu Ram Awasthi, made an application u/s 16(5) seeking cancellation of the order dated March 11, 19ol declaring the premises to be vacant. It was registered as case No. 188 of 1981. On July 14, 19sl the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dismissed this application. Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi challenged it in a revision (No. 522 of 1982) which was, however, dismissed by the IV Additional District Judge, Allahabad on April 16, 1985. She then filed Writ Petition No. 9765 of 1985 challenging these orders. The petition was admitted and directed to be connected with the earlier writ petition (No. 14229 of 1981) of G.K. Awasthi by an order of July 15, 1985. The same day, an interim order was passed by this Court in this writ petition staying the eviction of the Petitioner from the premises. Smt, Kunwar Kishori Razdan and Smt. Vimla Kapoor are Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in both the writ petitions. The same day, an interim order was passed by this Court in this writ petition staying the eviction of the Petitioner from the premises. Smt, Kunwar Kishori Razdan and Smt. Vimla Kapoor are Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in both the writ petitions. They have filed counter affidavits in both the cases. The Petitioners have replied to them through their rejoinder affidavits. Some supplementary affidavits have also been exchanged between the parties. 7. Before proceeding to consider the submissions made by the counsel for tie parties, one more fact may be noticed. And, it is this: 8. Suit No. 248 of 1980 was filed by G.K. Awasthi and his mother impleading there in Smt. Vimla Kapoor and others praying for an injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession on the trees and the land forming part of the premises ot bungalow No. 23, Hamilton Road. Their case was that they were tenants and the Defendants were trying to forcibly evict them. The suit was decided by the XII Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Allahabad on February 24, 1983. In this suit some of the findings recorded were that the land, with the trees thereon, was not in the tenancy of late Sri Babu Ram Awasthi nor in his possession; that the status of the Plaintiffs was only that of trespassers; that the tenant Sri Babu Ram Awasthi had gone away to Bangalore in the year 1972 and permanently shifted av.ay from Allahabad and before going to Bangalore, he had vacated the house in dispute. Also, that it was not established that the Defendants ever threatened to forcibly evict the Plaintiffs. No cause of action, therefore, arose for the suit. The suit was dismissed. The judgment of the learned Munsif has been, according to the counsel for Awasthis, challenged in Civil Appeal No. 197 of 1983 and is pending consideration by the Addl. Distt. Judge, Allahabads 8. A number of submissions were made on behalf of the Petitioners by their counsel. Of these the one which was made with great emphasis, was that no opportunity was given to Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer before declaring the vacancy and making an order of release in favour of the landlady. Distt. Judge, Allahabads 8. A number of submissions were made on behalf of the Petitioners by their counsel. Of these the one which was made with great emphasis, was that no opportunity was given to Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer before declaring the vacancy and making an order of release in favour of the landlady. Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi, according to the submission, was brought on record as one of the heirs of late Sri Babu Ram Awasthi by the landlady through her application lor substitution made in case No. 17 of 1977. The application is annexure CA-1 to the affidavit of Mohd. Yakub, Pairokar of the landlady sworn in reply to the supplementary counter affidavit of Gopal Krishna Awasthi on December 2, 1982 in the first writ petition. Annexure CA-2 is a copy of the affidavit sorn by the landlady in support of that application. In paragraph 2 of this affidavit, the landlady says that the fact that Sri Babu Ram Awasthi had died on May 3, 1979 came to her knowledge for the first time on July 6, 1979. In the following paragraph, she stated that Sri Babu Ram Awasthi left behind him his widow, four sons and five daughters. Then in paragraph 4 she said that "Mrs. Babu Ram Awasthi and her 4 sons as mentioned above are the only heirs and legal representatives to inherit the tenancy right of the deceased, Babu Ram Awasthi in premises No. 23, Hamilton Road, Allahabad. " Mohd. Yakub has stated in paragraph 4 of the affidavit, to which appended annexures CA-1 are and CA-2, that the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the substitution application were on the ground of legal advice given to him by the landlady's counsel. About the letter sent by the son of the landlady on August i6, 1979 (Annexure-'3' to the first writ petition) in which he confirmed that the amount of Rs. 612/-, sent through the bank draft, cleared the rent account upto July 31, 1979 and that future remittances be made payable at State Bank of India, Madhavnagar Branch, Ujjain, it has been said in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit sworn by the landlady's son on her behalf that these allegations were not relevant for the purpose of the first writ petition. In his counter affidavit, sworn on behalf of the landlady in the second writ petition, her son explained this letter by stating in paragraph 21 that when rent was acknowledged by the landlady's son in his letter dated August 16, 1979, the fact that Sri Babu Ram Awasthi had died on May 3, 1979 was not in the knowledge of the landlady. She came to know about the death of Sri Babu Ram Awasthi much later. No advantage can be taken by the widow of Sri Babu Ram Awasthi from this letter. 9. The fact that the landlady knew about the death of Sri Babu Ram Awasthi on July 6, 1979 and that she herself brought the widow of Sri Babu Ram Awasthi on the record of the case as an heir and further that her son acknowledged on her behalf receipt of rent for the premises m dispute for the period ending July 31, 1979 stand clear. The proceedings in case No. 17 of 1977 were pending till January 21, 1981 when they were got dismissed as, not pressed. Case No. 491 of 1979 was instituted by Smt. Vimla Kapoor, through an application made u/s 16, on August 27, 1979 vacancy was declared through the order of January 2, 1981 by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and a copy of that order is annexure 12 to the first writ petition. Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi, as one of the heirs of late Sri Babu Ram Awasthi, was certainly entitled to notice before any order declaring vacancy was passed. 10. Counsel for the landlady has argued that Smt. Awasthi had opportunity before the order declaring vacancy was passed. He says that she bad notice through her son Gopal Krishna Awasthi who was contesting the case on behalf of all the heirs of Sri Babu Ram Awasthi as stated by him in his affidavit dated September 17, 1979 filed in case No. 17 of 1977 in reply to the substitution application made in that case. That affidavit has been brought on the record of the first writ petition along with the affidavit of Mohd. Yakub filed on behalf of the landlady in this Court. Gopal Krishna Awasthi opposed the prayer for substitution. In paragraph 1 of this affidavit, he says that he was one of the sons of Sri Babu Ram Awasthi and was doing pairvi on behalf of other proposed heirs. Yakub filed on behalf of the landlady in this Court. Gopal Krishna Awasthi opposed the prayer for substitution. In paragraph 1 of this affidavit, he says that he was one of the sons of Sri Babu Ram Awasthi and was doing pairvi on behalf of other proposed heirs. The counsel also syas that one of the sons of Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi, namely, Dr. B.K. Awasthi wrote a leiter dated August 2, 1979 to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad in reply to the letter No. 133 of July 23, 1979 sent by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad to him and asking for his presence in his office on August 8, 1979. In it, Dr. Awasthi intimated the Kent Control and Eviction Officer that his brother Sq. Leader G.K. Awasthi had been living there (23, Hamilton Road) and that he had asked him to contact the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. This letter is Annexure CA-3 to the aforesaid affidavit of Mohd. Yakub. A copy of the letter of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer of July 23, 1979 has been filed as Annexure 4 to the rejoinder affidavit sworn by Gopal Krishna Awasthi on May 17, 1982 in the first writ petition. This notice is addressed to Sri B.R. Awasthi and not to Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi. 11. It was urged on behalf of the landlady that in the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated July 14, 1982 on the application of Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi dated April 22, 1981 u/s 16(5) (numbered as case No. 188 of lv81) and of the Addl. District Judge dated April 16, 1985 passed in the revision against ihe order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, it has been found that Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi had knowledge of the case. The inspection report of October 3, 1979 by the Rent Control Inspector also says that the inspection has been made in the presence of Gopal Krishna Awasthi and a woman whom he was addressing as mother. All this shows that Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi was aware of the proceedings. Also, that the defence put forward by Gopal Krishna Awasthi was all that could be put forward by his mother Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi. Even if notice was not issued in the name of Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi, it could not be said that any prejudice has been caused to her on that account. Also, that the defence put forward by Gopal Krishna Awasthi was all that could be put forward by his mother Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi. Even if notice was not issued in the name of Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi, it could not be said that any prejudice has been caused to her on that account. This Court, according to the submission, should not interfere in the matter on the ground that proper opportunity was not given to Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi. Reliance was placed upon a decision of R.B. Lai, J. in Suresh Chandra v. 4th Addl. District Judge, Aligarh 1984 (U.P.) RCC 357. There, Petitioner Suresh Chandra who was living with his family in the United States of America had challenged the allotment of a shop situate in Aligarh, belonging to him to one Raj Kumar Mittal, after the previous tenant Bhagwan Das died, without notice to him. It was found as a fact that the brother of the petitiorer Suresh Chandra, namely, Mahesh Chandra, was looking after the shop as holder of power of attorney. Bhagwan Das, the previous tenant, had vacated the shop and handed over possession to Mahesh Chandra who did not give intimation of the vacancy of the shop to the Rent Comrol and Eviction Officer as required by Section 15(1) of the Act. The shop was then in possession of the Petitioner through his attorney. Mahesh Chandra, attorney, was present when the Inspector inspected tte shop. He had full knowledge of the allotment proceedings notwithstanding the fact that the notice of the proceedings was not served upon him. This Court declined to intervene in the matter as, having regard to the facts and circumstances noticed in the judgment; it felt that there has been no failure of justice in the case. The learned Judge who decided the case felt that it was not a fit case for exercise of discretation in favour of the Petitioner. 12. It is also canvassed by the learned Counsel 'for the landlady that, in any case, Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi did file an application u/s 16(5) (registered as case No. 188 of 1981) in which she put forward her own case. Her case was considered yet the relief sought was refused. As such also, Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi cannot complain that she suffered on account of non-issuance of notice to her. 13. In Ganpat Roy v. Additional District. Her case was considered yet the relief sought was refused. As such also, Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi cannot complain that she suffered on account of non-issuance of notice to her. 13. In Ganpat Roy v. Additional District. Magistrate 1985 AWC 547 the Supreme Court, while examining the question whether a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed against an order notifying deemed vacancy was premature as held earlier by the Supreme Court in Trilok Singh & Co. v. District Magistrate, Lucknow 1976 AWC 610 made some observations which are useful. The Supreme Court, after noticing the scheme of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 and the Rules framed thereunder, said (in-paragraph 10 of the report) that: From the very nature of things, a right to defend an application in the first instance is a very diffeient matter from a right to seek a review of the order on that application or a right of appeal against that order. In its very nature and scope, an original hearing differs substantially from a review or an appeal. A party applying for review or an Appellant cannot as of right lead evidence. Further, it is he who comes before the authority challenging an order passed to his prejudice and is not in the same position as the party against whom an order is sought in the first instance These observations clearly imply that before notifying a deemed vacancy, opportunity should be given to those who are likely to be adversely affected by the order. Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi was unquestionably such a person. She was undoubtedly a member of the family of Sri Babu Ram Awasthi being his spouse. She was brought on the record as a legal representative of Sri Babu Ram Awasthi during the pendency of the proceedings. Admittedly, no notice was issued to her. The question whether she was a tenant, after the death of her husband, within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act on account of being an heir normally residing with Sri Babu Ram Awasthi in the building at the time of the death could only be determined after notice to her and not otherwise. 14. The question whether she was a tenant, after the death of her husband, within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act on account of being an heir normally residing with Sri Babu Ram Awasthi in the building at the time of the death could only be determined after notice to her and not otherwise. 14. If, as I hold, it was imperative to serve a notice upon Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi before the question of deemed vacancy could be decided after the death of Sri Babu Ram Awasthi, the mere fact that she had knowledge of the proceedings or that failure to serve a notice upon her did not visit her with any prejudice, would hardly matter. Giving of a notice to a tenant, in the case of a deemed vacancy u/s 12(4), has been made \ imperative by the proviso to Section 16(1). A notice under that proviso must be given as ruled by the Supreme Court in Yogendra Tewari v. Distt. Judge, Gorakhpur 1984 AWC 369 . 15. The requirement that notice should be given to a person who is likely to be affected by the order cannot be dispensed with by relying upon the principle of absence of prejudice or imputation of certain knowledge to the party against whom action is sought for. The Supreme Court has laid it down in Chintapalli Agency Taluk Arrack Sales Cooperative Society Ltd. and Others Vs. Secretary (Food and Agriculture) Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, AIR 1977 SC 2313 . 16. Service of notice upon Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi was also necessary because the landlady's son himself wrote to one of the sons of late Sri Babu Ram Awasthi on August 16, 1979 that the amount sent by that son of Sri Babu Ram Awasthi, on behalf of his mother, through the Bank draft cleared the rent account upto July 31, 1979. -May be, as said by him in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the mother, the landlady, this assertion was made in ignorance of the fact that Sri Babu Ram Awasthi had died, yet, without anything more, the assertion undoubtedly entitled Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi to a notice from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer before declaring vacancy. -May be, as said by him in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the mother, the landlady, this assertion was made in ignorance of the fact that Sri Babu Ram Awasthi had died, yet, without anything more, the assertion undoubtedly entitled Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi to a notice from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer before declaring vacancy. The letter was subsequently filed by Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi in Rent Revision No. 522 of 1982 on March 10, 1983 along with an affidavit as annexure 1 and was numbered as paper No. 16-G. This fact is clear from the supplementary affidavit of Gopal Krishna Awasthi sworn on September 24, 1985 and filed in the first writ petition after inspecting the file of Rent Case No. 491 of 1979 as desired by this Court. In paragraph 4 of the said supplementary affidavit, another circumstance brought to the notice of this Court was that in case No. 491 of 1979 the landlady filed an affidavit on September 26, 1979 in which the receipt of rent through the Bank draft was acknowledged in paragraph 14 while stating in paragraph 15 that it was accepted by her having no knowledge of the death of Sri Babu Ram Awasthi. There is a reference in paragraph 14 to the letter dated August 4, 1979 of Dr. B.K. Awasthi, son of Sri Babu Ram Awasthi, in reply to which the letter dated August 16, 1979 was sent by the son of the landlady. Though filing of the affidavit on September 26, 1979 has been disputed in the supplementary counter affidavit by Mohd. Yakub on behalf of the landlady, in reply to the aforesaid supplementary affidavit of Sri G.K. Awasthi, what has been said is that the extract of paragraphs 14 and 15 given in paragraph under reply were of an affidavit sworn and filed on or about December 8, 1979. Be that as it may, the fact that Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi claiming to be a tenant of the premises in dispute had been brought on record loDg before the declaration of the vacancy by an order of January 2, 1981. Be that as it may, the fact that Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi claiming to be a tenant of the premises in dispute had been brought on record loDg before the declaration of the vacancy by an order of January 2, 1981. Whether her claim was correct or not and whether rent has been accepted in ignorance of the fact of death of Sri Babu Ram Awasthi could only be decided, in this situation after notice to Smt Bhagwati Awasthi and so also the question whether the accommodation could be deemed to be vacant. 17. If on no other ground, Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi would be entitled, in the circumstances of the present case, to notice from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, before an order notifying a deemed vacancy could be passed, on the ground of natural justice. She is a widow who claims that the rent remitted on her behalf after the death of her husband, for the period ending July 31, 1979 had been accepted on behalf of the landlady. On this claim she certainly deserved a notice before an order adversely affecting her right could be made. Merely because she would have no explanation other than what had been offered by her own son, even if opportunity was afforded to her by serving a notice, or that she was held to be a trespasser later by a judgment dated April 24, 1983 (which judgment is under appeal) by the 12th Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Allahabad would not justify non-issuance of notice to her. This is what follows from the decision of the Supreme Court in Olga Tellis and Others Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Others, AIR 1986 SC 180 . 18. The failure to give notice to Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi before vacancy was directed to be notified was a clear violation of the statutory requirement of Rule 8. It has the result of depriving her of an opportunity of hearing which Rule 8 conferred upon her. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Others, AIR 1986 SC 180 . 18. The failure to give notice to Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi before vacancy was directed to be notified was a clear violation of the statutory requirement of Rule 8. It has the result of depriving her of an opportunity of hearing which Rule 8 conferred upon her. "The proviso to Section 16(1) makes it clear that in the case of a deemed vacancy the District Magistrate is required to give an opportunity to the landlord or tenant, as the case may be, of showing that no declaration of deemed vacancy u/s 12(4) could at all be made in his Case...." As the vacancy, actual, expected or deemed, is a jurisdictional fact for the making of an order of allotment u/s 16(1) or for an order of release under Clause (b) thereof the District Magistrate must follow the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Even in the absence of these provisions, viz. proviso to Section 16(1) and Rules 8(2) and 9(3) of the Rules, framed u/s 41 of the Act, the principle of audi alteram partem would clearly be applicable. The District Magistrate in making an order of allotment under Clause (a) or an order of release Under Clause (b) of Section 16(1) clearly exercises a quasi judicial function and therefore he has the duty to hear. There must be an impartial objective assescment of all the pros and cons of the case after due hearing of the parties concerned. Section Yogendra Tewari v. District Judge, Goraknpur 1984 AWC 369 . 19. The order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer of January 2, 1981 is unsustainable not only on the ground that the procedure followed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was violative of the provisions of the Act and the Rules but also on the ground that it was violative of the principles of natural justice. It cannot be sustained nor can the order passed by him on March 11, 1981 releasing the premises in favour of the landlady u/s 16 following the declaration of vacancy. The jurisdictional fact of vacancy having been determined, without notice to Smt Bhagwati Awasthi, the fact of its affirmance by the District Judge in Revision by his order of November 7, 1981 will not validate it. The order of the District Judge will also fall with it. 20. The jurisdictional fact of vacancy having been determined, without notice to Smt Bhagwati Awasthi, the fact of its affirmance by the District Judge in Revision by his order of November 7, 1981 will not validate it. The order of the District Judge will also fall with it. 20. The two orders which have been assailed in the second writ petition filed by Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi, namely, the one dated July 14, 1982 rejecting her application for review made u/s 16(5) and the second passed by the Additional District, judge on April 16, 1985 in the revision against it, can also not be sustained. The first of these orders is not only cryptic but also proceeds upon assumption of facts which were found without notice to Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi. For example, the fact that Smt. Awasthi was not residing with late Sri Babu Ram Awasthi at the time of his death has been assumed without disclosure of the basis for such assumption. The judgment of the District Judge dated November 7, 1.981, dismissing the Revision filed by G.K. Awasthi against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer of March 11, 19s 1 releasing the premises in favour of the landlady, has been relied upon. That order, which affirmed the order of release consequent upon declaration of vacancy without notice to Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi, itself being untenable in law cannot justify any inference based upon it. The revisional order of the Additional District Judge dated April 16, 1985, which upholds the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer refusing to review the earlier order at the instance of Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi, suffers from the same error in holding that the order of the District Judge was rightly relied upon by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The revisional order also says that no error of jurisdiction had been committed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. It further says that the sons of Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi had full knowledge of the proceedings from the very beginning and one of them, namely, G.K. Awasthi even contested the proceedings. The application, according to the revisional order, was too belated having been moved after her son had lost the litigation before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the revision filed by him before the District Judge was pending. This was also a reason for refusing relief. The application, according to the revisional order, was too belated having been moved after her son had lost the litigation before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the revision filed by him before the District Judge was pending. This was also a reason for refusing relief. If, as held by me earlier, it was imperative that a notice be given to Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi before deciding the question of vacancy, the so called delay by her in making the review application would be of no consequence, particularly, when there is no dispute that no notice was issued to her by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer before declaring the premises to be vacant. The revisional order must also, therefore, fall. 21. In the view that I have taken, it is not necessary to go into the other submissions made on behalf of the Petitioners in the two writ petitions which were to the effect that the temporary absence or keeping the premises locked temporarily did not amount to a tenant ceasing to occupy the premises or that there was no proof that Sri Babu Ram Awasthi and, alter his death, his heirs substantially removed their affects from the premises or further that the authorities had failed to consider material evidence on the record which vitiated their orders. It is also not necessary to go into the question whether the landlady was precluded from disputing the claim of the widow of late Sri Babu Ram Awasthi that she had been acknowledged as tenant by acceptance of rent tendered to her on behalf of Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi and having brought them on record as an heir of Sri Babu Ram Awasthi after his death. These questions, together with the question of the effect of late Sri Babu Ram Awasthi having indicted Ganga Prasad Yadav in the premises without the consent of the landlady or the correctness of the allegation made on behalf of the landlady that no heir of Sri Babu Ram Awasthi was normally residing with him at the time of his death in the premises in dispute shall be gone into by the authorities under the Act afresh in accordance with law. They shall do so expeditiously after notice to Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi. 22. In conclusion, both the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. They shall do so expeditiously after notice to Smt. Bhagwati Awasthi. 22. In conclusion, both the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The orders impugned therein namely, the orders dated January 2, 1981, March 11, 1981 and November 7, 1981 (Annexures 12', 13' and 15' in writ petition No. 14229 of 1981) and dated July 14, 1982 and April 16, 1985 (Annexures 10' and 11' in writ petition Mo. 9765 of 1985) are quashed, parties are however, left to bear their own costs in both the petitions.