JUDGMENT B.L. Loomba, J. - Controversy in this writ petition filed on 6782 relates to House No. 553/135, Adarsh Nagar, Alambagh, Lucknow. This house originally belonged to Shri S.S. Barrow, who is said to have died long back. Respondent No. 3, Satnam Singh, moved an application before the Rent Control Officer, Lucknow, on 19977 for the allotment of this house, claiming it to be vacant. The Rent Control Inspector submitted his report dated 28977 and according to his report the accommodation was vacant. The vacancy was notified under order dated 29977 and in the absence of any objection the premises were allotted to Shri Satnam Singh under order dated 61077 and he took possession of the premises excepting two rooms, on 6th or 7th October, 1977. According to the petitioner, possession was taken over by Shri Satnam Singh forcibly and illegally by dispossessing the petitioner while the case of Shri Satnam Singh is that he was put in possession on 71077 by Shri E.B. Barrow, one of the two heirs of deceased Shri S.S. Barrow. Petitioner G.S. Barrow claiming to be the exclusive owner of this premises, moved an application before the Rent Control Officer under Section 16(5) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter shall be referred to as, the Act) seeking review of the order of allotment. He also filed revision against the order of allotment under the said section, pleading in substance that the allotment was obtained by suppressing true facts inasmuch as the owner of the premises was shown to be S.S. Barrow who died long before and no notice was issued or served upon the petitioner and he being forcibly dispossessed lodged the report fit the police station. 2. 2. The learned Additional District Judge, by his order dated 17181, allowed the revision application with the findings that the revisionist (present petitioner) was proved to be dealing with the premises, he was landlord within the meaning of the Act, that the notice was issued in the name of a dead person i.e. Shri S.S. Barrow and according to the report of the ProcessServer, who carried the notice, E.S. Barrow met him at the spot, read the notice and stated that S.S. Barrow had died and that he (E.S. Barrow) refused to accept the notice and that the notice was eventually affixed at the outer door of House No. 84, Naya Gaon, where the landlords were reported to be residing. On these facts it was found that the provisions of Rule 9(3) of the Rules made under the Act were not complied with and the allotment order stood vitiated. The learned Additional District Judge further recorded that there was no truth in the plea raised by allottee Satnam Singh that the possession of the premises was delivered to him by E.B. Barrow, one of the descendants of Late S. S. Barrow, that E. B. Barrow had not given any consent either to the allotment or to the allottee getting in possession of the premises and in any case the revisionist G.S. Barrow appearing clearly to be the landlord of the premises, the alleged consent of E. B. Barrow as to the delivery of possession was of no consequence. The revision was, accordingly, allowed and the order of allotment dated 61077 was set aside. It was directed that the Rent Control Officer shall invite objections of the landlords and dispose of the same. If it was found that the premises are available for allotment it may be allotted to Satnam Singh or to any other person found entitled. An observation was made that since Satnam Singh was in possession of the premises since October, 1977, the claim of Satnam Singh for allotment should be given first preference. Parties were directed to appear before the Rent Control Officer on 12281 and the Rent Control Officer was required to dispose of the matter within two months. 3. An observation was made that since Satnam Singh was in possession of the premises since October, 1977, the claim of Satnam Singh for allotment should be given first preference. Parties were directed to appear before the Rent Control Officer on 12281 and the Rent Control Officer was required to dispose of the matter within two months. 3. The parties did not appear before the Rent Control Officer on 12281 and according to Satnam Singh, vide para 4 of the counteraffidavit dated 16882, the petitioner did not file any objections against the allotment either on 22281 or on the next two dates, i.e. 18381 and 16481, and the case was adjourned to 14581, when the petitioner moved an application under Section 18 (3) of the Act seeking delivery of possession to him. As stated in the rejoinderaffidavit dated 23882, vide paragraph 5, objections to the allotment had already been filed before the Rent Control Officer. The submission of the petitioner in this regard seems to be correct because he bad already moved an application under section 16(5) (a) of the Act dated 221077 stating that in collusion with the subordinate staff of the Rent Control Officer a concocted local inspection was made and service of notice on the landlords was fraudulently shown to have been made and on that basis the allotment order was obtained against law and the same was prayed to be set aside and he(landlord) be put in possession. Copy of this application is Annexure1 to this writ petition. 4. As mentioned above, the petitioner moved an application under section 18 (3) of the Act, on 14581 stating that the allotment order having been set aside by the judgment of the Additional District Judge dated 17181 in revision proceedings, the petitioner was entitled to be put back in possession of the disputed premises (copy of the application, Annexure2). This application was disposed of by the Additional District Magistrate (city) Lucknow, by order dated 20482 (Annexure3). It was held that the allotment order having been set aside it was obligatory on the part of the District Magistrate to have put back the landlord in possession and it was accordingly directed that Satnam Singh shall vacate the premises within 15 days of the date of order. It was held that the allotment order having been set aside it was obligatory on the part of the District Magistrate to have put back the landlord in possession and it was accordingly directed that Satnam Singh shall vacate the premises within 15 days of the date of order. 29582 was fixed for filing objections, referring obviously to the objections as to the question of vacancy of the premises and its availability for allotment. 5. Satnam Singh admittedly did not comply with the order dated 20482 and instead moved a transfer application under section 3(c), on 23 482, of the Act before the District magistrate mainly on the ground that the Rent Control Officer failed to decide the question of vacancy of the premises even when the case was taken up on several dates and he was required to decide the matter within two months as per order of the Additional District Judge dated 17181 and on the other hand he proceeded to take up and decide the petitioner's application under section 18(3) of the Act and passed the order for delivery of possession dated 20482. This transfer application was allowed by the District Magistrate on 13582 as the petitioner had no objection to the case being transferred and accordingly the case was transferred to the Court of Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue). The parties were directed to appear before him on 27582. 6. Satnam Singh then moved application under Rule 22 (f) of the Rules seeking recall of the order dated 20482 and according to the petitioner the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner passed ex parte order dated 19582 in the following terms: Heard the parties concerned. Operation of the order dated 20482 is stayed till further orders. 7. Being aggrieved by the order dated 19582 the petitioner moved the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), submitting that the order was against law and he was entitled to the delivery of possession without delay. Operation of the order dated 20482 is stayed till further orders. 7. Being aggrieved by the order dated 19582 the petitioner moved the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), submitting that the order was against law and he was entitled to the delivery of possession without delay. The Additional District Magistrate, upon consideration of the matter, passed another order dated 27582 (copy Annexure 6) stating that the file had been received in his court only on 14582 and in accordance with the directions of the Additional District Judge contained in the judgment dated 17181 the matter was to be disposed of within two months and that every effort will be made to do so within the said period and it was not expedient to dispossess Shri Satnam Singh for such period. 361982 was fixed in the case. 8. The petitioner moved yet another application on 3682 before the Additional District Magistrate, submitting that the order dated 20482 was passed as a mandatory requirement of section 18(3) of the Act and that the order dated 27582 suffers from error apparent on the face of the record because he was not empowered under law to stay the operation of the order dated 20182 and the order dated 27582 merits to be recalled to prevent the abuse of the process of the authority and to do justice in the matter. In this application two decisions of the High Court were referred to. The petitioner's grievance is that the Additional District Magistrate did not pass any speaking order on this application and instead passed a very cryptic order saying that the earlier order staying the enforcement of the order dated 20482 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (City) is valid. Copy of this order is Annexure7, on record and according to paragraph 17 of the writ petition the order was passed in the margin but that is not reflected in the copy Annexure7. In any case, this application was rejected by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue). 9. Copy of this order is Annexure7, on record and according to paragraph 17 of the writ petition the order was passed in the margin but that is not reflected in the copy Annexure7. In any case, this application was rejected by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue). 9. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the Additional District Magistrate (F and R) and by his order dated 27582 the petitioner moved the District Magistrate on 24682 for transfer of the matter to some other court but that application was rejected by the District Magistrate, outright, without any notice, as per orders on the margins of the application on the next day on the ground that the case had already been transferred from one court and no ground has been made out for transfer. 10. When the petitioner failed to have the order dated 27582 vacated and also failed to have the case transferred from the file of Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) he filed the present writ petition on 6782 with the following prayers: (a)That a writ of certiorari be issued for quashing the order dated 951982 passed ex parte on the application of oppositeparty no. 3 as well as orders dated 2751982 and the orders dated 361982 after summoning their originals from opposite party no. 1. (b) That a writ of mandamus be issued directing and commanding the oppositeparty no. I and 2 not to act in utter violation of law or in utter disregard of the law as enunciated by this Hon'ble High Court or the orders passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Lucknow in this case and the oppositeparty nos. I and 2 be further commanded to first comply with the provisions of section 18 (3) and S. 16 (5) of the Act before proceeding with the case any further. (c) That a writ, order or direction in the nature of a write be issued which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (d) That costs of the petition be also awarded to the petitioner against the respondent. 11. Along with the writ petition stay application was moved praying for direction to the Additional District Magistrate to implement the order dated 20482 before proceeding further in the matter. An interim order was granted on 6782 directing that till further order proceedings before the oppositeparties shall remain stayed. 11. Along with the writ petition stay application was moved praying for direction to the Additional District Magistrate to implement the order dated 20482 before proceeding further in the matter. An interim order was granted on 6782 directing that till further order proceedings before the oppositeparties shall remain stayed. As a result of the stay order, which appears to have been extended from time to time, the proceedings before the Additional District Magistrate as regards vacancy of the premises and allotment in the event of its availability for allotment remained stayed. As a result, Satnam Singh continues to remain in possession of the premises. Unfortunately, the matter could not be taken up for disposal all these years. 12. Satnam Singh filed counteraffidavit on 16882 raising the same pleas, namely, that besides the present petitioner Shri E.B. Barrow is also coowner of the premises, that the premises were not in the occupation of the petitioner and were in fact in the tenancy and occupation of one Shri Maczuir Joseph and others and they were forcibly evicted and the respondent coming to know of the vacancy applied for allotment and was duly put in possession on the basis of allotment order by co landlord Shri E.B. Barrow. It was stated that the petitioner who was living in another mohalla Naya Gaon and that the Additional District Magistrate rightly directed that the (respondent) could not be put out of possession until disposal of the matter relating to vacancy of the premises. The impugned order dated 27.5.82 was justified on the facts of the case and was legal and that the writ petition was misconceived. Rejoinderaffidavit was filed to challenge the correctness of the factual aspects as to the ownership and vacancy of the premises. 13. In paragraph 17 of the counteraffidavit Satnam Singh stated that he had offered rent to Shri E.B. Barrow at the agreed rate of Rs. 50 per month several time but he always refused to accept the same and that he is ever willing to pay the same. This averment was controverted in paragraph 18 of the rejoinderaffidavit mentioning that it is wrong to say that Satnam Singh offered any rent at any time at the rate of Rs. 50 per month several time but he always refused to accept the same and that he is ever willing to pay the same. This averment was controverted in paragraph 18 of the rejoinderaffidavit mentioning that it is wrong to say that Satnam Singh offered any rent at any time at the rate of Rs. 50 per month and that he was in illegal occupation of a major portion of bungalow with lawn etc, and has cooked up a false story of offering the rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. It was actually the rent of outhouse and servant quarters of the bungalow. The fact remains that Satnam Singh has not paid any rent or damages in respect of the premises to the petitioner, that he as per the counter affidavit has been willing and is still willing to do so. Further, it appears that there is dispute as to the rate of rent of the premises payable by a tenant. 14. The chequered history of the case is simply unfortunate. The matter relating to the vacancy or otherwise of the premises which was required to be disposed of within two months as per the order of the Additional District Judge dated 17.1.81 passed in revision has remained undisposed of as yet. The petitioner succeeded in obtaining an order dated 20.4.82 on his application under section 18(3) of the Act requiring Satnam Singh to vacate the premises within 15 days and upon his failure to do so he was required to be evicted by use of necessary force. This order also remained uncomplied with because its operation was stayed by the Additional District Magistrate under the order dated 27.5.82. 15. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the short point of law arising for consideration is whether it was open to the Additional District Magistrate to stay the operation of the order passed earlier under section 8(3) of the Act and thereby disentitle the landlord of his right to be put in possession after the order of allotment in favour of the respondent was rescinded in revision. Thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the right of a landlord to seek delivery of possession under Section 18(3) of the Act is absolutely clear, unambiguous and unaffected by the factum of pendency of the proceedings as to the vacancy of the premises. Thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the right of a landlord to seek delivery of possession under Section 18(3) of the Act is absolutely clear, unambiguous and unaffected by the factum of pendency of the proceedings as to the vacancy of the premises. This submission has obvious force. The respondent's right to possession of the premises is related to the order of allotment in his favour and according to his own saying he got in possession of the premises in pursuance of the order of allotment and his right to continue in possession ceased ex facie when the allotment order is set aside. A perusal of the provisions of section 16 of the Act would show that the District Magistrate is required to pass an allotment order requiring the landlord to let any building which is vacant or is about to fall vacant and accordingly the allotment order by itself does not authorise the allottee to take possession of the allotted premises. The allotment order being directed against the landlord the allottee has a right to require the landlord to put him in possession. In the present case what appears clearly is that the allotment order was directed against a person who had died long back and in that context there was no question of the respondent getting into possession at the instance or consent of any one else. His plea that he was put in possession by E.B. Barrow, who according to him was a colandlord as legal representative of the deceased Shri S.S. Barrow. This plea was not accepted by the learned Additional District Judge and in my view rightly so. Nothing worthwhile could be shown prima facie to establish that Shri E.B. Barrow was a coowner of the property and in any case was dealing with the premises. The order of the Additional District Judge dated 17.1.81 makes a reference to the effect that the respondent himself had filed papers to show that one Shri Maczuir Joseph had moved an application under section 14 of the Act for regularisation of his tenancy of the premises and in those proceedings it is the present petitioner who was shown as landlord. In this factual aspect of the matter the respondent's act of getting in possession of the premises was not according to law. In this factual aspect of the matter the respondent's act of getting in possession of the premises was not according to law. Further, the very basis of his possession, namely, the order of allotment having been set aside his continuance in possession became illegal and unauthorised. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised the following submissions to oppose the writ petition: 1. That the impugned orders are interlocutory. 2. That the Additional District Magistrate is vested with the inherent powers to stay the order dated 20.4.82. 3. That the writ petition is not maintainable for nonimpleadment of colandlords and that the petitioner has not come to this court with clean and fair hands inasmuch as he failed to cooperate in the proceedings relating to the vacancy or otherwise of the premises and instead pressed his application under Section 18 (3) of the Act only to secure benefit of possession at the cost of the respondent whose claim was held to be preferential for allotment in the event of the premises found to be vacant. 17. Upon careful consideration of the rival contentions raised before me, I am clearly of the view that the writ petition merits to be allowed subject to certain directions. 18. The provisions of section 18 (3) of the Act are clear and categorical, not carrying any conditions or ambiguity as to the restoration of possession as before the allotment. And the allotment order in favour of the respondent having been cancelled under the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge dated 17.1.81; he became liable to be evicted as per that order. The order of the Additional District Magistrate dated 20.4.82 was according to law and not dependent on or conditional of the disposal of the question of vacancy and availability or otherwise of the accommodation for allotment. Submission of the respondent to assail the validity of the order dated 20.4.82 is misconceived and lacking of any force. In this view of the matter the impugned order dated 27.5.82 to stay the operation of the order dated 20.4.82 was not appropriate or justified. Submission of the respondent to assail the validity of the order dated 20.4.82 is misconceived and lacking of any force. In this view of the matter the impugned order dated 27.5.82 to stay the operation of the order dated 20.4.82 was not appropriate or justified. The learned counsel for the respondent could not refer to any provision of the Act whereunder the Additional District Magistrate was empowered to pass the impugned order dated 27.5 82 and stay the eviction of the respondent under order dated 20.4.82 which was passed in pursuance of the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge in the revision proceedings. I am unable to appreciate the submission that the Additional District Magistrate was vested with any inherent power to stay the operation of the order dated 20.4.82. True, that the impugned order dated 27.5.82 is in the nature of an interim order but in so far as the order dated 20.4.82 is concerned its operation has been stayed so as to make it dependent on the disposal of the question of vacancy of the accommodation and its availability or otherwise for allotment. In this way the impugned order seeks to take away the valuable right of the petitioner to be put in possession under section 18 (3) of the Act. The petitioner, as such, was entitled to challenge the validity of the impugned order through this writ petition. 19. It is true that in the order of the Additional Judge dated 17.1.81 which is the very foundation of the petitioner's case, there is observation that the respondent will have preferential claim for allotment if the accommodation eventually becomes available for allotment and further that the proceedings on the question of vacancy or otherwise were directed to be disposed of within two months. These two observations or directions cannot, however, extend any legal right or assistance to the respondent nor can the same be trumped up as a basis for avoiding the liability to vacate the premises which was the direct consequential effect of the cancellation of the order of allotment. 20. The fact that the proceedings in relation to the vacancy or otherwise could not be concluded as per the direction contained in the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge, could not be used by the Additional District Magistrate to stay the operation of the order dated 20.4.82. 20. The fact that the proceedings in relation to the vacancy or otherwise could not be concluded as per the direction contained in the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge, could not be used by the Additional District Magistrate to stay the operation of the order dated 20.4.82. I am , therefore, of the view that the order dated 27.5.82 is not according to law and it can be said that the same was passed in abuse of the powers or in exercise of powers not vested in the Additional District Magistrate. 21. In this entire matter there is, however, one aspect carrying some merit in the stand taken by the respondent. This writ petition was filed on 6.7.82. Along with the writ petition application for stay was moved by the petitioner containing a prayer in these terms: It is prayed that by an adinterim order this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct that the order dated 20.4.82 be implemented first before proceeding with the case, any further or proceedings on the basis of the impugned order dated 27.5.82 be stayed during the pendency of this writ petition. On this application notice was directed to be issued and the application was directed to come up on 19.7.82. It was directed that till that date further proceedings before opposite party shall remain stayed. The interim stay order was extended from time to time and continues to be effective till date. If the stay of the proceedings before the Additional District Magistrate had not been sought or granted the proceedings could have been over long before and if the proceedings had ended with the finding that there was no vacancy and as such the accommodation was not available for allotment, the impugned order dated 27.5.82 would have automatically become infructuous entitling the petitioner to be put in possession of the accommodation in pursuance of the order of the Additional District Magistrate dated 20.4.82 read with the Judgment and order of the Additional District Judge dated 17.1.81. In that situation the writ petition would have become infructuous. It appears, this aspect was not raised before this court at any stage when term of the interim order was extended from time to time. In that situation the writ petition would have become infructuous. It appears, this aspect was not raised before this court at any stage when term of the interim order was extended from time to time. So far as the respondent was concerned he was obviously interested in the delay of the matter because he was enjoying the accommodation without paying anything by way to rent or damages. With reference to this factual position the learned counsel for the respondent has raised the submission that the petitioner has not come to the court with clean and fair hands and that he was interested in delivery of the accommodation without disposal of the proceedings in relation to the vacancy of the accommodation. The learned counsel submits that the respondent has been in continuous possession of the accommodation since 7.10.77 and it would be unfair and unjust if he is evicted from the premises after about 11 years without there being any enquiry or proceedings as to the vacancy of the accommodation and its availability for purpose of allotment. In the entirety of facts some equitable consideration do stand to arise in favour of the respondent. 22. In his reply to the application of the petitioner under section 18(3) of the Act, the respondent had pleaded that the monthly rent of this accommodation was Rs. 50 and that E. B. Barrow had agreed with the respondent to accept Rs. 50 as rent but subsequently petitioner G.S. Barrow intervened and demanded Rs. 5.000 as premium and Rs. 100 as monthly rent for the portion of which possession was delivered to the respondent, vide paragraphs 17 and 26 of the reply of the respondent dated 3.6.82, Annexure C8 to the writ petition. The same plea was raised by the respondent in counteraffidavit in this writ petition dated August 16, 1982, vide paragraph 1 thereof. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has strongly denied this allegation. According to him Rs. 50 was the rate of rent of the servant quarters of the bungalow and that the respondent is in occupation of the main bungalow having lawn etc Annexure C4 to the counteraffidavit, copy of inspection report dated 20. 8.75 gives some details of the main part of the bungalow. Annexure C2 to this Counteraffidavit mentions names of 11 tenants, Some of them paying rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. 8.75 gives some details of the main part of the bungalow. Annexure C2 to this Counteraffidavit mentions names of 11 tenants, Some of them paying rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. They seem to have been residing in outer quarters of the bungalow rather than the main building of the bungalow. In this situation, it is difficult to accept the contention of the respondent that the rate of rent of the accommodation in question was Rs. 50 per month or that E.B. Barrow had agreed to accept rent at this rate. It is not possible for this court to record any findings as to what is the correct or appropriate rate of rent/damages for the accommodation in question. That will require to be decided in appropriate proceedings. On the own spying of the respondent G.S. Barrow petitioner had demanded Rs. 100 per month as rent besides premium. If any equitable consideration in favour of the respondent is kept in view and the delivery of possession is directed to be put off till the disposal of the proceedings relating to the vacancy or otherwise of the accommodation or in any way the delivery of possession comes to be put off what appears just and proper is to lay down a condition about deposit of the arrears payable at the rate of Rs. 100 per month from the date of occupation and its payment at the same rate till the date of actual eviction. If the respondent sacks equity he must be prepared to exercise equity. This shall be subject to determination of liability as to the compensation in appropriate proceedings. 23. Upon consideration of the matter in all its relevant aspects including the respective equities and practicability's of the situation I dispose of the writ petition finally with the following directions: 1. That the impugned order of Additional District Magistrate dated 27.5.82, contained in Annexure6 to the writ petition is quashed. 2. Subject to what is provided in the paragraph (4) below the respondent shall vacate the premises within three weeks from the date of this judgment and If he fails to do so he shall after the expiry of this period be evicted forthwith without waiting for the disposal of the matter as regards vacancy of the accommodation. 3. 2. Subject to what is provided in the paragraph (4) below the respondent shall vacate the premises within three weeks from the date of this judgment and If he fails to do so he shall after the expiry of this period be evicted forthwith without waiting for the disposal of the matter as regards vacancy of the accommodation. 3. The Additional District Magistrate concerned will dispose of the matter relating to the vacancy of the accommodation and its availability or otherwise for allotment expeditiously, say within a period of three months from the date on which a copy of this judgment is produced before him by the petitioner. The parties shall appear before the Additional District Magistrate on September 29, 1988. 4. If the respondent pays to the petitioner or deposits with the Additional District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2, for payment to the petitioner the arrears at the rate of Rs. 100 per month payable from 7.10.77 to 31.8.88, within a period of three weeks from the date of this judgment, he may not be evicted from the premises in question till the disposal of the proceedings before the Additional District Magistrate relating to vacancy and availability of the accommodation for allotment. (Order accordingly)