JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows. 2. A suit No. 241 of 1966 was filed by the petitioner Jagdish Saran against Shri Nanhey Mal and Shiv Shanker, respondents No. 1 and 2 in the petition for ejectment and arrears of rent in respect of a shop situated in the district of Moradabad. This suit was decreed on 16th May, 1969 on the basis of the compromise between the parties. This suit was decreed for ejectment and for arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 20/- per mensem from 4-5-1966 to 3-8-1966. A decree for mense profit was also passed at the rate of Rs. 20/- per mensem from 4-8-1966 till the date of delivery of possession in pursuance of the decree. An application for execution of the decree was filed in the court of Munsif, Chandausi, district Moradabad on 23-12-1972. This application was registered as execution case No. 200 of 1972. On 6-4-1973 Shiv Shanker filed objections under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure challenging the execution proceedings on the ground that a fresh tenancy rights had been created in his favour, on the basis of an alleged agreement between him and the landlord who is the petitioner in this case and that the rate of rent had been fixed at Rs, 60/- per mensem. The court examined the matter in detail and dismissed the objection filed by Shiv Shanker on 22-1-1980. Categorical findings were recorded that Shiv Shanker had infact, forged the rent receipts and that there was no fresh contract of tenancy between the parties as alleged by Shiv Shanker. Against the decision dated 22-1-1980 dismissing the objections of Shiv Shanker under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Shiv Shanker filed a revision. The revision was also dismissed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Moradabad by his order dated 13-11-1982. After these proceedings under Section 47 were concluded, the petitioner landlord made an application on 21-12-1982 requesting the executing court to proceed with the execution. When the execution again commenced, this time Shiv Shanker took a very ingenious plea that he had already handed over possession of the shop in dispute to the petitioner landlord on 30th November, 1982 and hence the execution against him was liable to be dismissed. When the execution again commenced, this time Shiv Shanker took a very ingenious plea that he had already handed over possession of the shop in dispute to the petitioner landlord on 30th November, 1982 and hence the execution against him was liable to be dismissed. The plea set up by Shiv Shanker was resisted by the petitioner-landlord. It was stated by him that in fact, both the judgment debtors Nanhey Mal and Shiv Shanker continued to be in possession of the property in dispute and that the assertions made that the possession had been delivered on 30th November, 1982 was completely a false allegation. As a matter of fact what the respondent No. 2 Shiv Shanker did was that after intimation to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, he got an allotment order passed in respect of the shop in dispute in favour of his son on 27-11-1982. 3. On 31-12-1982 Shiv Shanker made an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in which it was stated that he had handed over possession to his son Rajendra Kumar on 31-12-1982. ON that very day Rajendra Kumar, the son of Shiv Shanker also made an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in which he stated that he had obtained the possession of the shop. 4. On 25th March, 1983 the Munsif, Chandausi before whom the execution application was pending dismissed the execution application on the ground that the possession cannot be delivered as allotment order has already been passed on 27-11-1982 in favour of Rajendra Kumar and possession has already been delivered on 30th November, 1982. Against this order dated 25th March 1983 a Misc. Appeal No. 34 of 1983 was filed. The 1st Additional District Judge, Moradabad by his order dated 27th July, 1984 dismissed the appeal though it found that the allotment order dated 27-11-1982 was wholly void and without jurisdiction. He took the view that since Rajendra Kumar had come into possession on the basis of the allotment order and hence the execution cannot proceed. It is this order dated 27th July 1984 which has been challenged by the petitioner by means of the present petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. He took the view that since Rajendra Kumar had come into possession on the basis of the allotment order and hence the execution cannot proceed. It is this order dated 27th July 1984 which has been challenged by the petitioner by means of the present petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that once the lower appellate court held in his order dated 27th July, 1984 that the allotment order in favour of Rajendra Kumar, the son of the judgment debtor was without jurisdiction and illegal, the lower appellate court should have ignored that order and should have directed the execution to proceed. The view to the contrary taken by the lower appellate court is manifestly erroneous. 6. From the facts, which I have detailed above and which are not disputed, it is apparent that they speak for themselves. The decree which was passed as far back as 1969, could not he executed because of the fraudulent conduct of the judgment debtors in getting the allotment order passed in favour of Rajendra Kumar, the own son of one of the judgment debtors without delivering the possession of the property to the decree holder. In Smt. Sakina v. Vlth Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Meerut, 1983 ARC 357 Hon'ble M. N. Shukla, J. (as he then was) held as follows :- "The law is very well settled that an allotment order cannot be validly passed if it is secured by collusion or fraud. It is also well settled both on general principles of natural justice and the specific provisions of the Rent Control Act that no allotment order should be passed without notice to the landlord and without hearing him." 7. I respectfully agree with this proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble M. N. Shukla, J. In the instant case it is apparent from the facts stated above that the allotment order was secured by collusion and fraud. One of the judgment debtors, Shiv Shanker informed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that he as well as his brother Nanhey Mai, the other judgement debtor had actually vacated the premises and handed over the vacant possession of the premises to the landlord-decree holder. After intimating this he got an allotment order passed in favour of his own son Rajendra Kumar. After intimating this he got an allotment order passed in favour of his own son Rajendra Kumar. This is nothing but a clear case of fraud on the part of the judgment debtors. 8. Rule 9 (3) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 framed under the Act, clearly provides that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer shall issue notice to the landlord before considering the question of allotment. He has to specifically inform the landlord of the date fixed for the said purpose. In the affidavit of the landlord, Jagdish Saran in paragraph 10 it has been categorically stated that no notice was given to the petitioner of the allotment proceedings. In the circumstances, the allotment order is a void order having been passed without hearing , the landlord-petitioner. In view of the above, I agree with the conclusion arrived at by the lower appellate court that the allotment order passed in favour of Rajendra Kumar is wholly void and without jurisdiction. Once the lower appellate court recorded a finding that the allotment order was without jurisdiction and void it had to be ignored in the eye of law. In the circumstances, there was no other alternative for the executing court but to direct the execution to proceed. The view taken by the court below that because of the allotment order execution cannot proceed is, in my opinion, wholly erroneous view. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded. 9. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order dated 25-3-1983 passed by the Munsif, Chandausi, district Moradabad, order dated 27th July, 1984 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge and the allotment order dated 27-11-1982 aie hereby quashed. The execution of -the decree shall proceed. The executing court is directed to immediately take steps to execute the decree ignoring the allotment order in favour of Rajendra Kumar, son of the judgment debtor, Shiv Shanker and get the possession delivered to the decree holder without any further delay. The petitioner shall be entitled to his costs of this petition. Petition allowed.