ORDER Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - This is a matter under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioner, Messrs Shushila Paper Mills Private Limited, Kanpur, as the name suggests, is a private limited company. The issue in the present petition is in effect, the allotment order of 1-7-1985, which apparently has been set aside by the VIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Revision No. 135 of 1985; Dr. S. K. Srivastava v. Misri Lal Jaiswal and another, by an order of 23 November, 1985, annexure 5' to the writ petition. The allotment order has not been placed on record of the writ petition. Thus, this Court required the learned counsel for the petitioner to place the certified copy of the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, by which the premises were allotted to the petitioner as also the certified copy of the order of allotment dated 1, July, 1985 on form 'B', being the allotment order itself, by virtue of which the petitioner would have become a tenant by allotment of the premises in dispute. 2. The premises are situate at 7/105A, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur. The landlord, Dr. S. K. Srivastava, respondent No. 2, resides in Lucknow. In fact, this circumstance of the landlord residing outside Kanpur has created complications to the advantage of the petitioner, who had the allotment order in its favour and to the disadvantage of the landlord. , 3. The brief facts leading to the passing of an allotment order in favour of the petitioner are that the premises, aforesaid were initially occupied by the U. P. Khadi Gram Udyog Board at the time when the landlord's father was alive. The U. P. Khadi Gram Udyog Board vacated the premises as the landlord's father required it for his personal use. The landlord's father died. The Khadi Gram Udyog Board, aforesaid, did vacate the premises and the landlord moved an application under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act seeking release of the premises; implying thereby that the premises be not subjected to allotment proceedings. This release application was registered as case No. 24 of 1983. Consequent upon this release application being filed, an enquiry was ordered by the District Magistrate, Kanpur on the question of ascertainment of vacancy under the rules within the meaning of Rule8. This release application was registered as case No. 24 of 1983. Consequent upon this release application being filed, an enquiry was ordered by the District Magistrate, Kanpur on the question of ascertainment of vacancy under the rules within the meaning of Rule8. Thus far the facts are not in dispute. There is a controversy whether the landlord had notice of an order declaring the premises vacant. The vacancy was declared on 26 June, 1985. The landlord contends that he had no notice of it and any notice alleged to have been served is suspect. However, in the present writ petition the vacancy is not in issue; the allotment order of July, 1985 is. 4. This is the third writ petition of the petitioner. Earlier two writ petitions were dismissed. In pursuance of the allotment order of 1st July, 1985, the petitioner took possession, but, the landlord sought restitution by moving an application under Rule 21(f) pleading that the allotment order had been occasioned by fraud. Apprehending that he may have to deliver possession back to the landlord the petitioner filed two injunction suits, unsuccessfully. Ultimately, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by an order of 28th August, 1985 delivered possession of the premises to the landlord on the same day. 5. The fact that the possession of the premises had been retrieved by the landlord on sufficient cause on an application under Rule 22(f) was one aspect of the matter. Simultaneously, the landlord challenged the allotment order of 1st July, 1985 by a Rent Revision No. 135 of 1985, aforesaid. This brings this Court to the issues raised in the present writ petition. 6. The impugned order of the VIIth Additional District Judge, referred from now on as Additional District Judge, dated 23rd November, 1985 considered the matter relating to the vacancy, request for release of the accommodation by the landlord and the consequential -allotment proceedings. In reference to the matter relating to vacancy it is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that notice upon the landlord, while ascertaining vacancy, under Rule 8 is a matter of fact and thus not in issue, even in the order of Additional District Judge dated 23rd November, 1985. This submission is not compatible with the discussion on the subject by the Additional District Judge, aforesaid. This submission is not compatible with the discussion on the subject by the Additional District Judge, aforesaid. What the Additional District Judge observed is that the question whether notice was served on the landlord or not is virtually of academic value, as upon facts and circumstance it is a matter of deemed vacancy upon a tenant vacating the accommodation and the landlord seeking release of the same premises. No finding has been given by the Additional District Judge in the matter relating to ascertainment of vacancy or whether notice had been served upon the landlord, in this respect. The Additional District Judge has left the discussion as a redundant exercise. 7. This much is not in issue that it is a case of deemed vacancy within the meaning of Section 12 of the Act. If this had not been so, the petitioner would not have been a contender seeking allotment of the premises which were vacant. The landlord was seeking release of the same premises. 8. It is accepted by the landlord that the release application which was numbered as case No. 24 of 1983 was dismissed in default. There is an issue whether the second release application had been filed or not. It has been contended on behalf of the landlord that the issue of consideration of the release application, dismissed for default and consequently the filing of the second release application will not be made an issue in the present writ petition. Let it be so. 9. What remains is a scrutiny of the allotment proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no obligation upon the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to give notice to the landlord of the date when the allotment of the accommodation would be considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Additional District Judge erred in holding it otherwise. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is not consistent with the provisions of sub-clause (3) of Rule 9. I t is clear from a reading of the aforesaid rule that when the matter relating to the vacancy in reference to a premises is over, then vacancy will be declared and notified for information of the general public in the manner prescribed. A public notice would be caused specifying the date on which the question of allotment will be considered. A public notice would be caused specifying the date on which the question of allotment will be considered. Not only this, the said rule required the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to issue a notice to the landlord intimating him of the date when the allotment application will be considered. 10. There is no . escape from the mandatory provision of this rule putting an obligation upon the District Magistrate to make (a) a public notice specifying the date of the allotment proceedings in reference to a particular premises, and (b) a specific notice to the landlord intimating him formally of the date when the application for allotment of a contender would be considered. The rule is very clear, reasonable and in keeping with the principles of natural justice. If the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner were to be accepted that the allotment application is to be considered without notice to the landlord then it would virtually amount to requisitioning an accommodation unilaterally and denying the landlord to have his say when the allotment of his premises is being considered. 11. Thus, the District Judge was right that an allotment made without notice to the landlord is in breach of the provisions of sub- clause (3) of Rule 9, aforesaid. The allotment order, has rightly been declared as ultra vire' by the Additional Distt. Judge, aforesaid. An allotment made without hearing the landlord is a nullity. The Supreme Court had settled this proposition beyond doubt in two decisions AIR 1984 SC 1149 : 1984 All LJ 498); Yogendra Tiwari v. Distt. Judge, Gorakhpur and AIR 1987 SC 22 : (1986 All LJ 1509), Dr. (Smt) Keshav Devi v. G irdharilal. 12. At the time when the allotment proceedings were considered, it is on record of the order by which the petitioner was chosen as an allottee, that a company lease was being contemplated. The allotment has been made in the name of Messrs Sushila Paper Mills Private Limited, for residential and non-residential purposes. The order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer reads : "Messrs Sushila Paper Mills (P) Ltd. Ko Avasiya Tatha Anavasiye hetu" Thus, the allotment was in favour of (a) a corporate body and (b) for use which was residential and non-residential, both. 13. An allotment order must be specific in describing whether a building will be used for residential or non-residential purposes. 13. An allotment order must be specific in describing whether a building will be used for residential or non-residential purposes. The conjunction 'Or' as used in sub-clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 3 in this regard is relevant. In case there is a building which is likely to be used for residential or non- residential purposes then the allotment order must specify the portion which will be used for residential and non-residential purpose. A vague allotment order leads to misunderstandings and unnecessary disputes with a landlord. Once the allotment has been given finality it is not the intention of law to complicate matters for the landlord as it is his premises which are being allotted and he is entitled to know the nature of occupation by an intending tenant and allottee. In this respect the allotment order dated 1-7-1985 is vague. 14. There is no dispute that the allotment order secures the accommodation for the petitioner, a corporate body for residential and non-residential purpose. The intention f the legislation is that should an allotment e made for business purposes, then, if the business is a proprietorship, the proprietor must be named and the business name alone ill no do, likewise, if the allotment is in the name of a firm constituted by partnership the names of the partners must be disclosed. similarly, this principle would apply to a company tenancy implying thereby, that should an allotment be in the name of a company then the name of the Directors must be disclosed. It is not uncommon today that a corporate body registered under the Companies Act 1956 or a statutory corporation often seeks allotment of premises. Such corporate bodies become statutory tenants. Corporate bodies and statutory corporations are fictitious persons, whose affairs are run through their Directors. Thus, wherever, a firm or a company seeks an allotment, the allotment order must specify the names of the partners or the Directors, as he case may be. The purpose is that should there be an issue between the landlord and a tenant, the decision of a court would bind the firm or the company through their partners or Directors for carrying out the intention of the Act and the consequential orders of the Courts concerned. 15. The purpose is that should there be an issue between the landlord and a tenant, the decision of a court would bind the firm or the company through their partners or Directors for carrying out the intention of the Act and the consequential orders of the Courts concerned. 15. The allotment order is illegal for yet another reason, an aspect not noticed by the Additional District Judge, A perusal of allotment proceedings reveal that the vacancy was declared on 22 June, 1985. The landlord received no notice of the date when the allotment applications would be considered and the proceedings were ex parte as far as the landlord was concerned. There is no issue on the fact. 16. The allotment proceedings took place on 1st July, 1985 and an allotment order was passed the same day. The possession was required to be given to the petitioner as an allottee within 48 hours i.e. 3rd July, 1985 as the allotment order on form 'B' recites. 17. When the vacancy was declared on 22 June, 1985 a reasonable time ought to have lapsed for intimating the landlord of the consequential allotment proceedings. In the present case the landlord did not reside in Kanpur, but outstation at Lucknow. It is on record that no notice was sent to him of the allotment proceedings. Assuming that a notice had been sent, fixing a date on 1st July for an outstation landlord for the purpose of participating in the allotment proceedings of his premises, shows that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur, in reference to the context, was in a hurry to make the allotment and the petitioner likewise to receive it. When there is an outstation landlord, as a rule of prudence it is expected that the District Magistrate or the Rent Control and Eviction Officer will give adequate notice to the landlord and further be satisfied that the landlord has.received the notice or is evading notice of the date of the allotment proceedings. In the present case it is clear that it was intended that the landlord ought not to be present on the date of the allotment proceedings. 18. The allotment proceedings were fixed for 1st July, 1985, though ex parte. When an allotment order is made, Rule 12 requires that an allotment order should be in form 'B'. In the present case it is clear that it was intended that the landlord ought not to be present on the date of the allotment proceedings. 18. The allotment proceedings were fixed for 1st July, 1985, though ex parte. When an allotment order is made, Rule 12 requires that an allotment order should be in form 'B'. Section 16(3) in reference to an allotment order prescribes the particulars which an allotment order must contain. Section 16(3) of the Act, in reference to the context, is reproduced below : 16. Allotment and release of vacant building : (1) (a), (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 order, by which the landlord shall deliver possession to the allottee. . (d) such other particulars as may be prescribed. One of the particulars is the date, after passing of the allotment order, when the landlord would deliver possession to the allottee. This date will not be earlier than seven days, since the passing of the allotment order. 19. A bare perusal of the allotment order as issued on form 'B' reveals that the allotment order was passed on 1st July, 1985. The landlord was required to deliver possession ,on 3rd July, 1985. It is apparent from the allotment order that the effort was to put the allottee in possession against the mandate of law which gives the landlord seven days time to deliver possession. The allotment order is quashed by this Court as being patently illegal and made with the sole purpose of permitting an allottee to walk into a premises before the landlord ever becomes conscious of the fact that there were allotment proceedings followed by an allotment order which was acted upon without giving an opportunity to the landlord to deliver possession to the allottee. The purpose of giving seven days time to the landlord to deliver possession of an allotted premises to a prospective tenant is more than one. One tenant maybe winding up his affairs to permit another allottee to occupy the premises or a breathing time to the landlord to remove his affects. The purpose of giving seven days time to the landlord to deliver possession of an allotted premises to a prospective tenant is more than one. One tenant maybe winding up his affairs to permit another allottee to occupy the premises or a breathing time to the landlord to remove his affects. In the present case the Rent Control and Eviction Officer violated the stipulation of the law by depriving the landlord of an opportunity to be able to deliver possession after seven days. The expression in sub-clause (c), aforesaid, is very clear and emphasises "the date, which shall not be earlier than seven days" from the allotment order. 20. The allotment order in the present case does not disclose the name of all the Directors of the Company though the allotment is in the name of Messrs Sushila Paper Mills Company Private Limited. The allotment order is not capable of being acted upon and is writ large with vagueness. The allotment order does not specify which part of the building will be used as residential so that the remainder may be used as non- residential. The allotment is in the name of the company without specifying the Directors of the Company. The allotment order in totality thus, is inconsistent with the stipulations in sub-clause (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Act, aforesaid. Such an allotment order suffer from manifest errors which are apparent or the face of the record and in the interest o justice is liable to be quashed and accordingly it is. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner desires to fortify his submission and save the allotment proceedings on the basis of two citations. The first is reported in 1980 All CJ 468; Smt Parmeshwari Devi v. Vth Addl. Dist. Judge and the other is reported in (1984) 1 All R C 391 : (1984 All LJ 572); Shyam Das v. Delegatee District Magistrate, Bijnor. 22. In the matter of Parmeshwari Devi v. Vth Addl. District Judge (supra) the question was whether a landlord is entitled to receive a notice of consequential allotment proceedings when he may not have intimated the District Magistrate of a vacancy of the premises. In this case, vacancy had not been intimated by the landlord and the release of the accommodation had never been sought and was not a case of deemed vacancy. In this case, vacancy had not been intimated by the landlord and the release of the accommodation had never been sought and was not a case of deemed vacancy. This decision would not apply as in the present case the facts are different. In writ petition before this Court the issue was one of "deemed vacancy" under Section 12 as it is not denied, and the record bears it so that the landlord had sought release of the premises. It is because the landlord has sought release of the premises that the petitioner became interested consequent upon the circumstance that there was a deemed vacancy and the premises may be subjected to allotment proceedings. The release application of the landlord may be rejected erroneously or otherwise, yet he is entitled to notice of the date when the application for allotment would be considered and in pursuance of sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 aforesaid. 23. In the next case, that is, Shyam Das v. Delegatee District Magistrate (1984) All LJ 572) (supra) deemed vacancy within the meaning of Section 12 was in issue and not an established fact and regard being had to this circumstance.and the other that the landlord had not intimated vacancy, the requirement of sub-rule (3) of Rule 9, aforesaid, was held to be inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of that case. In the writ petition before this Court the circumstance of deemed vacancy is an established fact and not in issue. Thus the second case cited is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances in the present writ petition. 24. In the totality of circumstances as exist now with the allotment order of 1st July, 1985 having been quashed, logically, in the premises, in reference to the context, there is a deemed vacancy within the meaning of Section 12. Thus, at present there is no allottee or tenant for this accommodation. Notwithstanding that the earlier release application sought by the landlord may have been dismissed for default or otherwise, the landlord may move a release application afresh before the District Magistrate. In the event of a release application being filed within three weeks from the date of this judgment, it would be considered by the District Magistrate in accordance with law keeping in view the decision of a Full Bench of this Court, AIR 1986 All 96 : (1986 All LI 845), Talib Hasan v. 1st Addl. In the event of a release application being filed within three weeks from the date of this judgment, it would be considered by the District Magistrate in accordance with law keeping in view the decision of a Full Bench of this Court, AIR 1986 All 96 : (1986 All LI 845), Talib Hasan v. 1st Addl. Dist. J. Allahabad that allotment of premises would be consequential to the release application of the landlord. In case the release application is not moved by the landlord within the stipulated period, granted by this Court then a date of the allotment proceedings commensurate with sub-rule (3) of Rule 9, aforesaid, be intimated to the landlord. 25. The writ petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs.