JUDGMENT V.K. Mehrotra, J. - These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are directed against the orders dated April 10, 1986 by which the District Judge, Varanasi affirmed the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi in Rent Revisions Nos. 50 and 130 of 1986 under Section 18 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are admittedly applicable to the two premises question in these petitions. The facts in the two cases are almost similar. The questions canvassed before this court are similar too. The petitions were presented in this court on April 15, 1986. Most of the respondent put in appearance and counter affidavit was filed on behalf of some of them. As prayed by the counsel for the parties the petitions are being finally disposed of at the admission stage, after hearing counsel at some length. The essential facts are these : Near Shri Shiv Prasad Gupta Hospital, Varanasi one Sri Sahu Sia Ram constructed some quarters suitable for residential purposes for Medical Officers posted to the said hospital. Sahu Sia Ram entered into an agreement of lease for letting out these quarters with the State of U.P. through the Civil Surgeon, Varanasi on January 29, 1959. The two quarters which are in question in these petitions are part of premises No. K-65/86, Haridas Katra, Kabir Chaura, Varanasi. These quarters were allotted by the Chief Medical Officer/Senior Medical Superintendent, S.S.P.G. Hospital, Varanasi to the husbands of the two petitioners when they were posted at Varanasi to the said hospital. Dr. Madhavi Gupta, petitioner in Writ petition No. 5253 of 1986) is the wife of Dr. M.K. Gupta while Smt. Krishna Rai (petitioner in writ petition No. 5254 of 1986) is the wife of Dr. B.B. Rai. 2. Sri Rang Nath, the 5th respondent, is the son of late Sri Sia Ram Sahu. In the year 1977 he instituted a suit for the ejectment of the lessee from the premises. This suit was decreed on October 17, 1977 both for recovery of arrears of rent and for the ejectment of the lessee in respect of all the quarters forming part of the building. The lessee assailed the decree in a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The revision was allowed. This was on July 15, 1978. The lessee assailed the decree in a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The revision was allowed. This was on July 15, 1978. The landlord came to this Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which was allowed on January 29, 1981 and the case was remanded back to the District Judge for re-consideration of the matter on merits. The learned District Judge allowed the revision and dismissed the suit on February 16, 1982. The landlord Sri Rang Nath approached this court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition was allowed on January 23, 1984. The judgment of the trial court dated 17th October, 1977 decreeing the suit was restored. The decision of the High Court is reported as Rang Nath v. State of U P. and others, 1984(1) Allahabad Rent Cases, 642. While the writ petition was still pending in this Court, Dr. Madhavi Gupta (petitioner in Writ No. 5253 of 1986) obtained an allotment order of the quarter which was in possession of her husband Dr. M.K. Gupta in her favour on August 8, 1983. 3. The landlord put the decree into execution on February 13, 1984. This was registered as execution Case No. 15 of 1984. On February 15, 1984, a Parvana for possession was issued as no objection had been filed in the execution case. Smt. Krishna Rai (petitioner in writ petition No. 5253 of 1986) made an application for allotment of the quarter which was in occupation of her husband Sri B.B. Rai. Vacancy was notified by issuance of notice on March 23, 1984 and allotment was made in favour of Smt. Krishna Rai on March 27, 1984. 4. The lessee filed a Special Leave petition against the judgment of this Court dated January 23, 1984 before the Supreme Court in May, 1984. Special Leave was granted by the Supreme Court on September 10, 1984. While granting the special leave, the Supreme Court was pleased to grant the following interim order. "Special Leave is granted, Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that on the facts and circumstances of this case, it is just and reasonable to stay of the operation of the order of eviction on the condition that the State Government would pay Rs. "Special Leave is granted, Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that on the facts and circumstances of this case, it is just and reasonable to stay of the operation of the order of eviction on the condition that the State Government would pay Rs. 5,000/- per month with effect from 1st September, 1984 by way of rent to the landlord during the pendency of this appeal. Irrespective of the result of the appeal, we issue the state subject to the above condition........." The State Government started paying Rs. 5,000/- per month to the landlord in pursuance of the above order and the eviction of the lessee could not take place. 5. The case of the lessee is that there has been no actual physical vacancy as far as the two quarters in question are concerned. The orders of allotment which had been obtained by Smt. Madhavi Gupta on August 8, 1983 and Smt. Krishna Rai on March 27, 1981 were obtained behind its back and were invalid because they could not be passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in absence of any vacancy in the premises. In any case, the premises were not even about to fall vacant within the meaning of that phrase as understood in law so that the premises could not be allotted even on the footing that the premises were about to all vacant. The petitioners, however, say that the two orders of allotment were perfectly valid in law having been made at a time when the premises were about to fall vacant. However, to continue the narration : the Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi filed applications under Section 16(5) of the Act on January 25, 1986 seeking review of the order of allotment. On February 4, 1986, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allowed the application in the case of Dr. Madhavi Gupta setting aside the order of allotment on August 8, 1983 (with its modification dated March 13, 1984). In the case of Dr. Krishna Rai, the review petition was allowed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on March 1, 1986. The allotment dated March 27, 1984 in her favour was also set aside. Madhavi Gupta setting aside the order of allotment on August 8, 1983 (with its modification dated March 13, 1984). In the case of Dr. Krishna Rai, the review petition was allowed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on March 1, 1986. The allotment dated March 27, 1984 in her favour was also set aside. Both Smt. Madhavi Gupta and Smt. Krishna Rai challenged the order of Rent Control and Eviction Officer in revision before the District Judge, Varanasi which, as mentioned earlier, was also dismissed by the learned Judge on April 10, 1986. When the present writ petitions were filed in this court on April 15, 1986 interim order staying dis-possession of the two petitioners from the premises in dispute was passed by this Court. 6. The orders which are under challenge in the present writ petitions are those by which the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has set aside the orders of allotment made in favour of the petitioners and the orders of the Learned District Judge, Varanasi affirming them. 7. On behalf of the two petitioners, the case was argued initially by Sri S.N. Verma, Senior Advocate and later by Sri Sudhir Chandra, Advocate, Learned Standing Counsel and Sri S.D.N. Singh appeared for the respondents other than the landlord who was not represented by any one. Basically, what was urged on behalf of the petitioners was that the order of allotment dated August 8, 1983 in favour of petitioner Smt. Madhavi Gupta and of March 27, 1984 in favour at petitioner Smt. Krishna Rai was valid as it had been made when the premises were about to fall vacant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer as also the learned District Judge were in error in taking the view that these orders were invalid because the premises were not actually vacant when these allotment orders were made. It has also been urged with some vehemence that the review petitions under section 16(5) which were filed on January 25, 1986 were highly belated and should have been thrown out on this ground alone. No interference with the allotment orders could be made on these applications. 8. An order of allotment and release of buildings is provided for in section 16 of the Act. The provision, in so far as it is relevant for these petitions, reads thus : "16. No interference with the allotment orders could be made on these applications. 8. An order of allotment and release of buildings is provided for in section 16 of the Act. The provision, in so far as it is relevant for these petitions, reads thus : "16. Allotment and release of vacant building (1) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the District Magistrate may by order : (a) require the landlord to let any building which is or has fallen vacant or is about to fall vacant, or a part of such building but not appurtenant land alone, to any person specified in the order (to be called an allotment order) ; or (b) ............ (2) ............ (3) The allotment order shall specify (a) Whether the building shall be used by the tenant for residential or non-residential purposes ; (b) in the case of business purposes, the names of proprietors or partners of the business; (c) the date, which shall not be earlier than seven days after the date of the order by which the landlord shall deliver possession to the allottee; (d) such other particulars as may be prescribed. (4) Where the allottee or the landlord has not been able to obtain possession of the building, allotted to him, or, as the case may be, released in his favour, or any part thereof, the District Magistrate, on an application of the allottee or the landlord, as the case may be, may by order evictor cause to be evicted any person named in the order as well as every other person claiming under him or found in occupation and may for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary and put or cause to be put the allottee or the landlord to possession of the building or part. (5) (a) Where the landlord or any other person claiming to be lawful occupant of the building or any part thereof comprised in the allotment or release order satisfies the District Magistrate that such order was not made in accordance with clause (a) or clause (b), as the case may be, of sub-section (1), the District Magistrate may review the order.Provided that no application under this clause shall be entertained later than seven days after the eviction of such person. (b) Where the District Magistrate on review under this sub-section sets aside or modifies his order of allotment or release, he shall put or cause to be put the applicant, if already evicted, back into possession of the building and may for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary. (7) Every order under this section shall, (subject to any order made under section 18) be final. (8) The allottee shall, (subject to the provisions of sub-sections (6) and (9) and section 18), be deemed to become tenant of the building from the date of allotment or, where he is unable to obtain possession by reason of a stay order or of any other person having occupied or continued to occupy the building, from the date on which he obtains possession. (9) The District Magistrate shall, while making an order under clause (a) of Sub-section (1) also require the allottee to pay the landlord an advance, equivalent to (a) where the building is situate in a hill municipality, one half of the yearly presumptive rent ; and (b) in any other case, one month's presumptive rent, and on his failure to make or offer the payment within a week thereof, rescind the allotment order. (10) ............ The material part of section 2 which deals with the deemed vacancy of a building reads thus : "12. Deemed vacancy of building in certain cases.-(1) A landlord or tenant of a building shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building or a part thereof if (a) he has substantially removed his effects therefrom, or (b) he has allowed it to be occupied by any person who is not a member of his family, or (c) in the case of a residential building, he as well as members of his family have taken up residence, not being temporary residence, elsewhere. (2) ............ (3A) ............ (3B) ............ (4) Any building or part which a landlord of tenant has ceased to occupy within the meaning of sub-section (1), or sub-section (2), or sub-section (3-A) or sub-section (3-B) shall for the purposes of this Chapter, be deemed to be vacant. (2) ............ (3A) ............ (3B) ............ (4) Any building or part which a landlord of tenant has ceased to occupy within the meaning of sub-section (1), or sub-section (2), or sub-section (3-A) or sub-section (3-B) shall for the purposes of this Chapter, be deemed to be vacant. (5) ............" Section 18 days that no appeal shall lie from any order under Section 16 but any person aggrieved by the final order under that provisions may prefer a revision to the District Judge within 15 days from the date of the order on any of the grounds mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c). Sub-section (3) of section 18 says that where an order under Section 16 is rescinded, the District Magistrate shall, on an application being made to him on that behalf, place the parties back in the position which they would have occupied but for such order and may use of cause to be used such force as may be necessary for that purpose. The State Government has framed rules under section 41 which are known as the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972. A reference to these rules shall be made a little latter. 9. Parties are seriously at issue on the question whether allotment could be made on August 8, 1983 in favour of Smt. Madhvi Gupta while the writ petition was pending in this Court and in favour of Smt. Krishna Rai on March 27, 1984 at the stage when parwana for delivery of possession had been issued in Execution Case No. 15 of 1984 on the basis that the premises were an "about to fall vacant" or not. Their counsel cited some decisions in support of their submissions. For disposal of the petitions, however, it is not necessary to consider the rival submissions or notice decisions cited by the learned counsel nor is it necessary to record a conclusion whether the allotment orders are valid. For a decision in these petitioners it may be assumed that both the allotment orders were validly made on the basis that the premises were likely to fall vacant. How far would this assumption help the petitioners in obtaining relief in the present petitions is to be seen. 10. For a decision in these petitioners it may be assumed that both the allotment orders were validly made on the basis that the premises were likely to fall vacant. How far would this assumption help the petitioners in obtaining relief in the present petitions is to be seen. 10. In a case where an order of allotment is made in respect of premises about to fall vacant, the Act and the Rules contain provisions in regard to its consequence. A look at section 16(3) would show that the allotment is to specify the date, which shall not be earlier than seven days after the date of the order, by which the landlord is to deliver possession to the allottee. It also has to mention such other particulars as may be prescribed. Rule 12 says that the order of allotment shall be issued in Form B. The requirement of this Forth amongst others, is that it would contain a direction from the District Magistrate to the landlord that the possession shall be delivered by the landlord to the allottee by a date mentioned in the allotment order or within ten days of its being vacated by the person in its possession. It also is to contain a direction about payment of a specified sum as presumptive rent for a month in accordance with section 16(9) of the Act. Rule 14, which provides for enforcement of an order of allotment or release, lays down that where any building about to fall vacant is allotted, proceedings for putting the allottee in possession shall be taken by the District Magistrate only after the building has actually fallen vacant or is held by the District Magistrate through an inquiry conducted in that behalf to have fallen vacant. It also says that an order in this respect shall be served in Form C upon the person found in unauthorised occupation of the building by the District Magistrate requiring him to deliver vacant possession of the building to the person named in the order within a specified period. Failure of such a person to hand over possession may entail a further order in Form D addressed to the Officer-in-charge of the police station concerned to get the building vacated and put the allottee in possession thereof. 11. Failure of such a person to hand over possession may entail a further order in Form D addressed to the Officer-in-charge of the police station concerned to get the building vacated and put the allottee in possession thereof. 11. Coming back to section 16, it is noticeable that sub-section (9) casts an obligation upon the District Magistrate, while making an order under clause (a) of sub-section (1), also to require the allottee to pay the landlord an advance equivalent to one month is presumptive rent and on his failure to make or offer the payment within a week thereof, rescind the allotment order. "Presumptive rent is defined in the explanation to this sub-section. Sub-section (4) of section 16 says that where the allottee has not been able to obtain possession of the building allotted to him, the District Magistrate, on an application of the allottee, may by order evict or cause to be evicted any person named in the order and others found in occupation and put the allottee into possession of the building. 12. These provisions clearly indicate that where an order of allotment is made when the premises are about to fall vacant, machinery has been provided for putting the allottee into possession when the premises become actually vacant. In other words, unless actual vacancy occurs, the possession of such allottee cannot be termed to be one in pursuance of the order of allotment. 13. These considerations are relevant to determine whether the possession of the two petitioners over the quarters has sanction of law to enable them to seek its protection from this Court in its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was urged with some emphasis by Sri Sudhir Chandra that the petitioners were in occupation of the quarters lawfully before the order of allotment as spouses of Dr. M.K. Gupta and Dr. B.B. Rai who had been allotted the accommodation by the Chief Medical Officer/Medical Superintendent, S.S.P.G. Hospital, Varanasi. It was urged with some emphasis by Sri Sudhir Chandra that the petitioners were in occupation of the quarters lawfully before the order of allotment as spouses of Dr. M.K. Gupta and Dr. B.B. Rai who had been allotted the accommodation by the Chief Medical Officer/Medical Superintendent, S.S.P.G. Hospital, Varanasi. The possession of these petitioners became one under the orders of allotment in their favour in the case of petitioner Smt. Madhvi Gupta on the date of the decree, i.e. January 23, 1984 or at least on February 15, 1984 when the executing court issued a parwana for possession in pursuance of the decree in her case in respect of the quarter allotted to her and in the case of Smt. Krishna Rai, it became such a possession on the date of the order of allotment, i.e., March 23, 1984. This submission overlooks the statutory scheme, of the Act and the Rules which contemplates putting of an allottee into possession after the premises have become actually vacant. Even in a case where the allottee obtains possession of the allotted premises without any assistance of the District Magistrate, the possession has to be given to the allottee by the landlord. The direction to let the premises is addressed to the landlord. It is he who has to follow the direction of handing over possession of the allotted premises to the allottee. Transfer of possession by the previous occupant to an allottee of the premises, without the landlord coming into picture-even though notionally, is not countenanced by the scheme of the Act and the Rules. It is implicit in an order made at a time when the premises are about to fall vacant that an allottee is to be inducted into the premises under the order of allotment only upon the occurrence of actual vacancy. It is implicit in an order made at a time when the premises are about to fall vacant that an allottee is to be inducted into the premises under the order of allotment only upon the occurrence of actual vacancy. Support for this view is available from a Division Bench decision of this Court in Lachmi Narain v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer; Lucknow and others, 1962 A.L.J. 213 where M.C. Desai, C.J. speaking for the Bench said (in paragraph 3 of the report) that Shanker Dutt, the allottee who was already in possession of the shop in question, could not be said to have entered into possession of the shop by virtue of the allotment order because the landlord had never obtained possession thereof in the ejectment suit which had been decreed in his favour and the shop had thus not fallen vacant. To quote the words of the learned C.J. : "Shanker Dutt had not entered into possession of the shop by virtue of the allotment order" at all he had only continued to be in occupation. He had been in occupation from before the ejectment suit was decreed against Beni Devi. There was no question of having been in possession or in occupation under the allotment order for the simple reason that the appellant (landlord) lied never obtained possession over the shop, the shop had never fallen vacant. Shanker Dutt had never approached the appellant and the appellant had never let out the shop to him. Spanker Dutt could not, therefore, claim any right of occupancy on the basis of the allotment order......" Views similar to it were expressed by R.B. Lal, J. in Ram Palat Singh v. Kalap Nath Rai and others, 1984 (@) All. Rent Cases 61. The learned Judge, after reproducing Form B in paragraph 41 of the report, said (in paragraph 42) that : "In the above proforma as I have underlined the portions which apply to the case of building which has been allotted on the basis that it is about to fall vacant. The proforma clearly indicates that the allottee can get possession over the building only after the sitting tenant actually vacates it. The proforma clearly indicates that the allottee can get possession over the building only after the sitting tenant actually vacates it. This has also been provided in rule 14 which has been referred to earlier." The decision in Ramesh Chandra Misra v. Shri Mahendra Tripathi and others, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 445 to which my attention was drawn on behalf of the petitioners, does not touch upon this aspect at all. That was a case where an unauthorised occupant had made an application for allotment of a residential building. This Court had taken the view that rule 14 requiring "first come first serve" principle to be followed was applicable only to persons similarly situate and that an unauthorised occupant could not be placed in the same situation as others who were in need of an accommodation. The Supreme Court said, while setting aside the decision of this Court, that the object of the Act has to be gathered from its provisions and that it had not found anything in the Act which disentitled an unauthorised occupant to ask for allotment. 14. The petitioners have also strenuously put forward the plea that the applications which had been made under section 16(5) were grossly delayed; as they had been filed long after the period of limitation mentioned in the proviso to section 16(5)(a). The case of the lessee is that, inasmuch as, it had not actually been evicted from the premises in pursuance of the decree for eviction, the period of seven days mentioned in the proviso did not start running at all. The applications made under section 16(5) were, therefore, not filed beyond the period of limitation. It is not really necessary to go into this question. For, even on assumption that the applications were made beyond the period of limitation. The fact remains that the petitioners are seeking protection of their physical presence in the premises from this Court on the basis of the allotment orders in their favour which were made at a time when the premises were "about to fall vacant." But their possession under the allotment orders, as seen earlier, has not commenced at all. Their physical presence in the premises. which commenced with the allotment of these premises to their husbands, could not validly continue after their husbands were transferred away from the S S.P.G. hospital. There is no dispute that they were so transferred away. Their physical presence in the premises. which commenced with the allotment of these premises to their husbands, could not validly continue after their husbands were transferred away from the S S.P.G. hospital. There is no dispute that they were so transferred away. Even if the orders impugned in these petitions are assumed to be without jurisdiction in the sense that they were passed on applications made under section 16(5) after the period of limitation, it is clear that the petitioners, whose dispossession would result as a consequence of these orders, are not in occupation of the premises validly. They entered into occupation of these premises as the wives of the two doctors who were allotted these quarters for their residence when they were posted to S.S.P.G. Hospital, Varanasi. The husbands of both the petitioners have, admittedly, been transferred away. The dispossession of the lessee from these premises in suggestions of the assess for ejectment, stands stayed under the orders of the Supreme Court. The petitioners obtained allotment of these premises on the footing that they were about to fall vacant. No actual vacancy of the premises occurred in these cases on account of the order of stay passed by the Supreme Court, U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the Rules framed stage under do not contemplate transfer of possession to an allottee by any one other than the landlord "except where the District Magistrate has to intervene in specified situation. The orders of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, as affirmed by the learned District Judge, call upon the petitioners, who are nothing but unauthorised occupants of the premises in the circumstances of the case, to vacate them. The order is pre-eminently just. This court would therefore, be reluctant to come to their aid in its discretionary jurisdiction even if the orders under challenge in these petitions be wholly without jurisdiction. The present are not fit cases for grant of relief to the petitioners in the equitable and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Legal position in this respect is more than settled. Reference may only be made to pronouncements of the Supreme Court and this Court, some of which were made in A.M. Allison and another v. B.L. Son and others, AIR 1967 Supreme Court 227, Pooran Singh and others v. Addl. The Legal position in this respect is more than settled. Reference may only be made to pronouncements of the Supreme Court and this Court, some of which were made in A.M. Allison and another v. B.L. Son and others, AIR 1967 Supreme Court 227, Pooran Singh and others v. Addl. Commissioner, Agra, AIR 1957 Allahabad 276, Parabu and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 1964 A.L.J. 240 and Matru Lal v. The Distt. Judge, Meerut and others, 1983 (1) A.R.C. 571. 15. In conclusion, the writ petitions are dismissed with costs to the contesting respondents. The ad interim orders dated April 15, 1986 are discharged.