JUDGMENT Anshuman Singh, J. - The present revision under Section 18 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 2-5-1985 passed by Sri Tanvir Zaffar Ali, Assistant City Magistrate (I) Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur, allotting part of accommodation No. 4/278-B, Chhaya, Vishnupuii, P.S. Kohna, Kanpur, in favour of B.D. Seth, opposite party under Section 16(1) of the Act was filed before the District Judge, Kanpur. The aforesaid writ petition, which was disposed of by me on 18-7-1985 has been remanded back to this Court by an order dated January 13, 1986 with a direction the petition revision pending before the IInd Additional District Judge, Kanpur, may be withdrawn to the High Court and heard along with the Writ petition. Hence both the case i.e. revision and the writ petition are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The case has a chequered history. One S.N. Gundu Rao was the landlord of the aforesaid accommodation in dispute and Sudhir Seth, Proprietor of M/s. Transfal Electronics Limited was the tenant. Gundu Rao filed Suit No. 32 of 1977 in the Court of the District Judge, Kanpur, for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent which was decreed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur on 21-9-1977. The opposite party tenant M/s. Transtel Electronics Limited feeling aggrieved filed a revision in this Court being Revision No. 2809 of 1977. During the pendency of the said revision Gundu Rao sold the accommodation in question to Kailash Chandra Tandon and Suresh Chandra Tandon through two separate registered sale deeds in the year 1978 who became owners thereof and they were made parties in the said revision in this Court. It appears that thereafter a compromise was arrived at between the parties but ultimately the said compromise was not acted upon. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 17-2-1981 allowed the revision and remanded the case back to the IVth Additional District Judge for deciding the suit afresh in the light of the observations contained in the judgment. After remand the suit was again decreed on 7-4-1984. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 17-2-1981 allowed the revision and remanded the case back to the IVth Additional District Judge for deciding the suit afresh in the light of the observations contained in the judgment. After remand the suit was again decreed on 7-4-1984. A revision filed against the aforesaid order was dismissed by this Court against which a special leave petition was filed in the Supreme Court of India which too met the same fate and the decree became final. Thereafter the applicants started execution proceedings in the Court of the IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur in which an objection under 47 CPC was filed which was partly allowed against which a revision filed in this Court was decided in favour of the applicants on 23-5-1985. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the revision in this Court a release application was filed by the applicants before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and it has been alleged that when the applicants made enquires about the said application they came to know that the accommodation in question has been allotted in favour of the opposite party without their knowledge on 2-5-1985. The applicant being aggrieved against the said order of allotment filed the present revision. 3. It appears that in pursuance of the allotment order dated 2-5-1985 the opposite party came into possession of the accommodation in question. In the meantime a parwana was issued by the Court in execution proceedings, which, as already stated, were started by the applicants, for delivery of possession to the landlords applicants. Thereupon the opposite party i.e. B.D. Seth filed Writ Petition No. 7480 of 1986 in this Court in which it was alleged that the opposite party (the petitioner) came into possession of the promises in dispute in pursuance of the allotment order dated 2-6-1985 against which a revision (Rent Revision No. 97 of 1985) has been filed which is pending before the District Judge. As already stated, the said writ petition was disposed of by me at the admission stage observing that however it is made clear that in case the allotment order passed in favour of the petitioner has not been set aside so far the petitioner will not be evicted until and unless the allotment order passed in his favour is quashed. As already stated, the said writ petition was disposed of by me at the admission stage observing that however it is made clear that in case the allotment order passed in favour of the petitioner has not been set aside so far the petitioner will not be evicted until and unless the allotment order passed in his favour is quashed. In view of the facts involved in the instant case it is hoped that revision filed by the landlord shall be expeditiously disposed by the District Judge, Kanpur. 4. The landlord filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court of India against the aforesaid order of this Court dated 18-7-1985 wherein the Supreme Court passed the following order :- "In the peculiar circumstance of this case we think that the most appropriate course would be to set aside the order of the High Court with a direction that the writ petition may be entertained and heard by the High Court on merits. The revision petition now pending before the IInd Additional District Judge, Kanpur, may be withdrawn to the High Court and heard along with the writ petition and both of them may be disposed of together...................... The appeal is disposed of accordingly." As stated earlier in the aforesaid circumstance both the cases are before me. 5. I first take up revision. I have heard Sri R.C. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the applicants, and Sri G.D. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the opposite party. Learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the provisions of Rule 9(3) being mandatory have not been complied with. Here it would be necessary to refer to Rule 9(3) which reads:- "9(3) Immediately after the receipt of intimation of vacancy of any building in the office of the District Magistrate, the vacancy shall be entered in a register which shall be maintained in that behalf and be notified for the information of the general public by pasting a copy of the list of the vacant buildings on the notice board of that office, specifying therein the date on which the question of allotment will be considered. He shall also issue a notice to the landlord intimating him the date so fixed. He shall also issue a notice to the landlord intimating him the date so fixed. On the date so fixed the District Magistrate shall consider the cases of all applicants registered in the register mentioned in Rule 10 and shall pass an order under Section 16 in accordance with Rules 10 and 11." (Underline by me) A careful reading of the aforesaid provision and the language used therein clearly indicates that the requirement of the said provision is mandatory and the said fact has not been disputed by the learned Counsel for the parties. In view of the fact that the provisions of Rule 9(3) of the rules are mandatory the landlord must be informed about the date fixed before any order is passed under Section 16 of the Act. 6. Learned Counsel for the applicants has straneously contended that no notice as provided under Rule 9(3) of the rules was served on the applicants before the impugned order of allotment under Section 16 of the Act was passed. On the other hand Mr. G.D. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the opposite party has vehemently submitted that since the notice was refused by Suresh Chandra Tandon and it was affixed in presence of two witnesses there has been full compliance of the provisions of Rule 9(3) of the rules. 7. The record of Case No, 24 of 1985 relating to allotment proceedings of the Court of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur, was called for and is before me. From a perusal of the said record there is no manner of doubt that no notice was even issued in the name of Kailash Chandra Tandon, applicant No. 2, who is also one of the landlords of the accommodation in dispute. A notice dated 22-4-1985, which is on the record, was issued to Suresh Chandra Tandon, Applicant No. 1, calling upon him to appear on 25-4-1985 and file an objection, if any. That notice was not personally served on Suresh Chandra Tandon. On the back of the notice there is a report of the process server that Suresh Chandra Tandon after reading the notice refused to acknowledge the same. He, therefore, affixed the same in presence of witnesses. There are certain remarkable features noticeable in the record of allotment proceedings. That notice was not personally served on Suresh Chandra Tandon. On the back of the notice there is a report of the process server that Suresh Chandra Tandon after reading the notice refused to acknowledge the same. He, therefore, affixed the same in presence of witnesses. There are certain remarkable features noticeable in the record of allotment proceedings. One of the redeeming feature is that on the back of the notice alleged to have been issued to Suresh Chandra Tandon names of two persons have been mentioned in the same hand-writing and in the same ink and a perusal of the hand-writing clearly indicates that they are not signatures of two witnesses but names of two firms have been mentioned. Apart from this two inks have been used in the report of the process server. After a perusal of the notice I am of definite view that the report made by the process server appears to be fishy. It is well settled that justice should not only be done but it should appear to have been done. 8. The other feature of the case is that the application for allotment made by B.D. Seth, opposite party, does not contain the date of filing the application for allotment as the date column is blank but however the endorsement made on the top of the application indicates that it was received on 15-4-1985. 9. It has been urged on behalf of the opposite party by Mr. G.D. Srivastava that since a notice was issued to one of the landlords which was refused even if no notice was issued to other landlord the compliance of Rule 9(3) of the rules should held to be sufficient. After giving my careful consideration to the contentions raised from either sides and perusing the notice dated 22-4-1985 issued to Suresh Chandra Tandon I am of definite view that there has been no compliance of the provisions of Rule 9(3) of the rules and the order of allotment is vitiated on the said ground alone. 10. The next submission made on behalf of the applicants in the revision is that the impugned order has been passed in contravention of Rule 8 of the rules and the provisions of the said rule have also not been complied with. Mr. 10. The next submission made on behalf of the applicants in the revision is that the impugned order has been passed in contravention of Rule 8 of the rules and the provisions of the said rule have also not been complied with. Mr. R.C. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the applicants, contended that no vacancy had occurred inasmuch as the execution proceedings were initiated after Civil Revision No. 169 of 1985 was allowed on May 23, 1985 by this Court and the application for allotment was filed during the pendency of the aforesaid revision He contended that B.D. Seth, who is the further of erstwhile tenant Sudhir Seth against when a decree for ejectment has been finally passed, surreptitiously obtained the order of allotment in his favour without any knowledge to the applicants though there was no vacancy. On the contrary Mr. G.D. Srivastava, learned Counsel for opposite party, contended that since the applicants themselves have filed an application for release the argument advanced on behalf of the applicants that there was no vacancy is not sustainable. A statement has been made at the bar by Mr. R.C. Srivastava that the said release application was not pressed. Apart from the said fact since the decree passed against the erstwhile tenant was held to be executable only on May 23, 1985 by this Court the question of release before the said date in favour of the applicants-landlords was wholly unwarranted under the law according to their own showing. Learned Counsel for the opposite party has not been able to meet the contentions raised on behalf of the applicants with regard to the non-compliance of Rules 9(3) and 8 of the rules and he, as a Senior Counsel of this Court, honestly though half-heartedly subscribed to the view taken by me that the case should be sent back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for deciding afresh after hearing the parties. In view of the facts of the case stated above I am of the opinion that the order of allotment dated 2-5-1985 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur, cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. In view of the facts of the case stated above I am of the opinion that the order of allotment dated 2-5-1985 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur, cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. Since I am sending the matter back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer I do not think it proper to express any opinion on the question of vacancy of the accommodation or otherwise inasmuch as the Rent Control and Eviction Officer will decide the question of the vacancy/allotment afresh. 11. With regard to the writ petition Mr. G.D. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner B.D. Seth, states that in view of the fact that the revision filed by the landlords-respondents is being allowed this petition has become infructuous. It may be rejected as having become infructuous. 12. In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order of allotment dated 2-5-1985 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur, is set aside and the case is remanded back to him with a direction that the application for A-51 allotment should be disposed of within a period of six weeks from the dated of production of certified copy of this order after affording full opportunities to the parties of adducing evidence in support of their respective cases and hearing them and till the disposal of the A-51 allotment application the opposite party shall not be evicted from the accommodation in dispute, if he is already in possession. Parties shall bear their own costs. 13. In view of the statement made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner the writ petition is rejected as having become infructuous. No order as to costs. 14. Let the records of Rent Revision No. 97 of 1985 and that of Case No. 24 of 1985 relating to allotment proceedings be sent down to the Courts concerned forthwith.