JUDGMENT K.N. Misra, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 7th of August, 1986 passed by the A.D.M. (City), Lucknow declaring the premises in suit located in Shahnazaf Imembara compound, Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow, which is in occupation of the petitioner Smt. Aziz Fatima, as vacant. 2. It appears that the Opposite Party No. 3 Sri Tajdar Husain had moved an application for allotment in respect of the aforesaid premises with the allegation that the same are in illegal occupation of the petitioner Smt. Aziz Fatima and the same be declared vacant and allotted to him. A report was called from the Rent Control Inspector, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. According to this report dated 9-10-1985, the Rent Control Inspector had visited the spot and contracted the petitioner, who was occupying the same on monthly rent of Rs. 40 per month having been let out by the Secretary Husainabad Trust in the year 1979. It is also mentioned in the report of the Inspector that she has asserted that the trust has issued rent receipts regarding payment of rent and that she has also invested huge amount in making certain constructions at her own costs according to her need and convenience. In the report the Inspector has also mentioned that she had also indicated to him that she is possessed of the receipts of rent and regarding purchase of material for making construction which she will produce as and when required by the Court. In view of these facts the Inspector has not come to any conclusion as to whether the premises in question can be treated to be vacant and he had submitted the report for being considered by the concerned authorities after hearing concerned parties in the matter. A perusal of his report clearly indicates that it is not a report wherein the Inspector has positively come to the conclusion that the premises are vacant. The Inspector has also not taken any care to meet the landlord, i.e., the Secretary of the Husainabad Trust in order to ascertain the fact as revealed by the tenant. There is also non-compliance of sub-rule 2 of Rule 8 which clearly provides that the inspection of the building shall be made in the presence of the landlord and the tenant or) any other occupant. There is also non-compliance of sub-rule 2 of Rule 8 which clearly provides that the inspection of the building shall be made in the presence of the landlord and the tenant or) any other occupant. This report, therefore, cannot be treated to be a valid report and the A.D.M. (City) should not have acted upon such report while passing the impugned order. He should have required the Inspector to make inspection as per requirement contained in sub-rule 2 of Rule 8 which enjoins upon the Inspector to make inspection of the building in the presence of the landlord and tenant or any other occupant. 3. Apart from it the extract of proceedings conducted in this case on various dates from 16-12-1985 to 7-8-1986 indicates that the petitioner, who had filed objection on 7-8-1986, was not given any opportunity by learned A.D.M. (City) to lead evidence in support of her contentions contained in her objection, instead of providing opportunity to the petitioner the learned A.D.M. (City) proceeded to pass the order declaring the premises to be vacant. He has passed this order on the Inspector report, which as already observed above, could not be treated to be valid inspection report, nor any opinion could be formed on the facts stated above that the premises are lying vacant and the petitioner's possession over the premises in question was not that of a tenant but as an authorised occupant. 4. It was urged on behalf of the learned Counsel for the opposite party that the learned A.D.M. (City) had passed the order after hearing arguments which were urged on behalf of the petitioner at the time of passing the impugned order. A perusal of the order dated 7th August, 1986 indicates that the arguments were urged on the point as to whether the premises in question falls within the preview of the Act 13 of 1972 or not. It appears that the Counsel for the petitioner had urged that although the property of waqf would fall within the ambit of Rent Control Act but it was asserted on her behalf that the premises in suit do not fall within the preview of the said Act for certain other reasons. It was, therefore, necessary for the learned A.D.M. (City) to have proceeded to decide the case after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties. 5. It was, therefore, necessary for the learned A.D.M. (City) to have proceeded to decide the case after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties. 5. It has also been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Secretary, Husainabad Trust had let out the premises to her and she had thereupon made certain constructions at her own expenses and is occupying the premises as tenant. The learned A.D.M. (City). Lucknow should have, therefore, given due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and he should have granted her time to lead evidence in support of her allegation. He should have also given notice to the landlord, namely, Secretary, Husainabad Trust and should have given due opportunity to the landlord to place his case with regard to the premises in question. It would have been enquired from the landlord as to whether the premises were let out by the trust to the petitioner or not and whether she had been paying rent of the premises to the trust or not. This has not been done. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed. It is accordingly quashed and the case is directed to be decided afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties after service of notice on them. 6. This Order I am constrained to pass because after going through the various order-sheets, the extracts of which have been annexed as Annexure-3, it is clear that the proceedings have not been conducted properly in the case. It is mentioned in the order-sheet dated 10-7-1986 that notice has been served on Secretary, Husainabad Trust. The order-sheet dated 24-7-1986 indicates that an argument was raised from the side of Opposite Party No. 3 that no notice be sent to the Secretary, Husainabad Trust. He has not passed any specific order as to whether notice should be sent or not to the Secretary, Husainabad Trust and fixed 4-8-1986 for filing objection by the petitioner. The order-sheet dated 4-8-1986 indicates that on account of byecott of Courts by the Counsel the case was adjourned to 7-8-1986 and on that date objection was filed by the petitioner. The order-sheet dated 4-8-1986 indicates that on account of byecott of Courts by the Counsel the case was adjourned to 7-8-1986 and on that date objection was filed by the petitioner. It is curious to note that in the order dated 7-8-1986 the learned A.D.M. (City) has observed that the opposite parties had been seeking adjournment on various pretexts and to day as well adjournment has been sought on behalf of the Husainabad Trust. No notice was served on the Secretary Husainabad Trust as is clear from the order-sheet dated 10-7-1986. It was urged on that day on behalf of Opposite Party No. 3 that no notice be issued to Husainabad Trust as it was not required to be issued in law and facts of the case. There is no evidence on record to indicate as to whether any notice was served on Secretary Husainabad Trust in respect of these-proceedings. 7. Thus, I find that in the impugned order the learned A.D.M. (City) has apparently wrongly mentioned that the opposite parties had been trying to delay the proceedings by seeking adjournment on one ground or the other. If on its own some one on behalf of the landlord had put in appearance on 8-7-1986 then it was the first appearance on that date on behalf of the landlord Trust. Thus the observation made by learned A.D.M. (City) in the impugned order to the effect that an adjournment admit application has been again moved on behalf of the Husainabad Trust is apparently wrong and arroneous. If such an application was moved it deserved to be allowed as prior to 7-8-1986 notice on Secretary Husainabad Trust was not served. This is revealed by the various order-sheets of the dates from 16-12-1985 till 7-81986. It is quite apparent that the proceedings in this case have not been properly conducted by the A.D.M. (City). 8. In the result, this petition succeeds and the order dated 7-8-1986 is set aside and the District Magistrate is directed to decide the case himself or nominate some other Addl. District Magistrate other than Sri R.P. Tyagi, who has passed the impugned order. Costs on parties.