JUDGMENT Parmeshwar Dayal, J. - The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that opposite party No. 3 Ishtiaq Ali is the landlord of House No. 253/6, Nadan Mahal Road, Lucknow. The dispute relates to a three door shop No. 253/6 with two small rooms of which the opposite party No. 2 Mizra Yawar Husain has been the tenant. Mirza Yawar Husain sent intimation in writing to the District Magistrate, Lucknow in June, 1975, that he had decided to vacate the disputed shop. Consequently proceedings for allotment of the said shop were started treating it to be a likely vacancy. The Petitioner Krishna Murari Rastogi moved an application for allotment of this shop in his favour. The Inspector went on the spot to ascertain about the vacancy of the disputed shop. Mirza Yawar Husain expressed his intention before him not to vacate the disputed shop and the Inspector gave his report dated 22-10-75 as contained in Annexure-1. The proceedings for allotment were dropped. Lateron one Raj Narain moved an application for allotment. The tenant Mirza Yawar Husain again sent intimation in writing to the District Magistrate, Lucknow on 9-1-76 that he was going to vacate the disputed shop. The proceedings for allotment again started. The tenant Mirza Yawar Husain and the landlord Ishtiaq Ali gave their statements to the Inspector on 26-1-76 and 27-1-76 respectively, contained in Annexure-2 and 3, to the effect that Mirza Yawar Husain intended to vacate the disputed shop. The Inspector gave his report dated 31-1-76 contained in Annexure-4, to the effect that the disputed shop was likely to fall vacant and it was to be allotted. The disputed shop was deplored vacant on 11-2-76 and a notice was served on the landlord. The landlord sent a letter, dated 11-2-76, contained in Annexure-5, to the effect that the shop may be allotted to Raj Narain whose application for allotment was pending. 2. The Petitioner contended that the tenant Mirza Yawar Husain and the landlord Ishtiaq AH were in collusion with Raj Narain for having received premium and this is why the tenant Mirza Yawar Husain first expressed that he was not going to vacate the disputed shop and lateron, after Raj Narain moved an application for allotment, both of them indicated that the shop was going to fall vacant, and that the landlord sent a letter dated 11-2-76 nominating Raj Narain as his tenant. 3. 3. The disputed shop was first allotted in favour of the Petitioner Krishna Murari Rastogi on 7-4-76, as contained in Annexure-6. Raj Narain, in whose favour the landlord had consented vide letter Annexure-5, filed a Rent Revision No. 220 of 76 before the District Judge, Lucknow which revision was dismissed on 30-7-76, vide judgment contained in Annexure-7. The allotment order dated 7-4-76 in favour of the Petitioner Krishna Murari Rastogi had become final but the tenant Mirza Yawar Husain did not deliver the possession to him. Consequently, an order in Form ' C ' was issued, as contained in Annexure-8, requiring the tenant Mirza Yawar Husain to deliver possession to the Petitioner Krishna Murari Rastogi on or before 12-9-76. 4. The tenant Mirza Yawar Husain challenged in revision the order contained in From ' C ' which revision was dismissed by lVth Additional District Judge, Lucknow, on 14-1-78 holding that a revision against that order was not maintainable. The tenant Mirza Yawar Husain then filed a Writ Petition No. 602 of 1978 challenging the order passed in revision which writ petition was allowed on 3-10-78, vide judgment contained in Annexure-9, and it was held that a revision was maintainable, and the case was remanded. After remand the Kent Revision No. 444 of 1976 was decided by the Distriet Judge, Lucknow, on 28.08.79 and the revision was allowed and the order in Form ' C ', contained in Annexure-8, was set aside, vide judgment contained in Annexure-10. Feeling aggrieved by this judgment, contained in Annexure-10, Krishna Murari Rastogi filed the present writ petition for quashing the order dated 28-8-79, contained in Annexure-10. 5. The only point that arises for decision in this writ petition is, whether the tenant Mirza Yawar Husain could change his mind second time also for not vacating the disputed shop. 6. It is worth noting in this case that the tenant Mirza Yawar Husain did not challenge the allotment order contained in Annexure-6, which allotment order had become final. In pursuance of the finality of the allotment order in favour of the Petitioner, the order in Form ' C ' as contained in Annexure-8, was issued and the tenant Mirza Yawar Husain challenged that order in Form ' C ' only. Thus the allotment order in favour of the Petitioner continued to remain final. In pursuance of the finality of the allotment order in favour of the Petitioner, the order in Form ' C ' as contained in Annexure-8, was issued and the tenant Mirza Yawar Husain challenged that order in Form ' C ' only. Thus the allotment order in favour of the Petitioner continued to remain final. The tenant Mirza Yawar Husain changed his mind and decided not to vacate the disputed shop when the Petitioner alone was the allottee. It was only after Kaj Narain moved an application for allotment that he again sent an intimation of his intention to vacate the disputed shop and confirmed the same before the Inspector. The landlord sent a letter, contained in Annexure-5, on 11-2-76 that the disputed shop may be allotted to Raj Narain. All these facts show that the tenant and the landlord were interested in the allotment of the disputed shop in favour of Raj Narain. On receipt of order in Form ' C ', the tenant filed a revision and contested the case upto the High Court although he had expressed his intention to vacate the disputed shop second time. The Petitioner has rightly contended that they were in collusion with Raj Narain in the matter of allotment. The landlord had no right to nominate Raj Narain as his tenant under the law. It is only u/s 17(1) of the Act that the landlord has a right to nominate his tenant if the allotment order is not communicated to him within twenty one days of the receipt of intimation of vacancy or expected vacancy by the District Magistrate. 7. If a tenant is so permitted to change his mind on vacating any premises, there would be no end of proceedings and the purpose of law will itself be frustrated, apart from the time and money that is spent for finalizing these proceedings. It would be an unnecessary and uncalled for burden on the State Exchequer that the Inspector and other allied machinery would remain busy in enquiring about the vacancy or deemed vacancy and even in finalizing those proceedings which may be annulled at the instance of waiving mind of a tenant. In the instant case it cannot be said to be a waiving mind of a tenant but it was a collusion with Raj Narain. 8. In the instant case it cannot be said to be a waiving mind of a tenant but it was a collusion with Raj Narain. 8. In the judgment of Writ Petition No. 602 of 1978, contained in Aanexure-9, it was observed to the following effect I "So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, we do not know whether the Petitioner had ever closed down his business or whether he is still continuing his old business. It is for the authorities concerned to examine the facts and to arrive at a proper conclusion. Therefore, the learned District Judge, Lucknow, 'before deciding the Revision No. 444 of 76 on 28-8-79, was required to give a finding on the fact that whether the tenant (the Petitioner of that writ petition) had closed down his business or he was still continuing his old business. Finding on this fact could be the determining factor for the point that if he had a right to change his mind as and when he chose and for fulfilling his own desires of getting the disputed shop allotted in favour of Raj Narain 9. The Petitioner relied on the case of Babu Lal Vs. Sheonath Das, AIR 1967 SC 1329 which case referred to the Old Act but the language of the Section 7(2) of the Old Act was similar to that of Section 16(1)(a) of the New Act. It was held in the cited case that the continuance of a tenant in occupation of premises after the allotment order of the occupation was in contravention of the allotment order. Of course, the facts of each case differ and in the cited case the landlord had allowed the tenant to continue in occupation of the premises under a new contract of tenancy on revised rent, but the particular pripciple of law laid down was that the tenant's continuance after the allotment order was in contravention of the allotment order. 10. In the instant case, therefore, the tenant Mirza Yawar Husain had no right to change his mind just to help Raj Narain for occupying the disputed shop. The allotment in favour of the Petitioner Krishna Murari Rastogi had become final and it would amount to substantial in justice if the allotment order, which was passed in favour of the Petitioner Krishna Murari Rastogi, is not allowed to be implemented. 11. The allotment in favour of the Petitioner Krishna Murari Rastogi had become final and it would amount to substantial in justice if the allotment order, which was passed in favour of the Petitioner Krishna Murari Rastogi, is not allowed to be implemented. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the judgment and order dated 28-8-79, passed in Rent Revision No. 444 of 1976, contained in Annexure-10, of the writ petition, is quashed. The opposite parties No. 2 and 3 Mirza Yawar Husain and Ishtiaq Ali are directed to deliver possession of the disputed shop to the Petitioner within thirty days from today. 12. No order is passed as to costs.