ORDER S.D. Agarwala, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The property in dispute is a first floor of the house No. 4/ 278-B, 'Chaya', Vishnupuri, Kanpur. A suit No. 32 of 1977 was filed against Sudhir Seth and M/s. Translet Elctronics Limited for ejectment from the premises in dispute and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. This suit was decreed on 21st September, 1977. Against the said decree, a civil revision was filed in this Court. After lengthy proceedings in this Court, the matter was remanded to the court below. By the judgment dated 7th April, 1984 the IV Additional District Judge, Kanpur again decreed the suit. Against the said decree, another civil revision No. 318 of 1984 was filed in this Court. This civil revision was dismissed by this Court on 25th July, 1984. Against the judgment dated 25th July, 1984 passed by this Court, the judgment-debtors filed a petition for special leave to appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The special leave to appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed on 3rd September, 1984. The ultimate effect was that the decree for ejectment became final. 2. After the decree became final and when it was put to execution, the judgment-debtors filed objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the C.P.C.). These objections were allowed and by the judgment dated 1-1-1985, the executing court held that the decree for ejectment was null and void. Against this judgment dated 1-1-1985, a civil revision No. 169 of 1985 was filed in this Court. This came up for hearing before me and ultimately by the judgment dated 23rd May, 1985. 1 allowed the revision, set aside the judgment dated 1-1-1985 and dismissed the objections of the judgment-debtors under Section 47 of the C.P.C. The facts which ultimately culminated in my judgment dated 23rd May, 1985 have been stated in detail in the said judgment and the decision is reported in (1985) 2 All Rent Cas 112, Suresh Chand Tandon v. M/s. Translet Electronics Limited, Kanpur and Sudhir Seth. 3. That after 23rd May. 1985. the decree- holder again initiated proceedings for execution of the decree. Thereafter, the petitioner B. D. Seth. 3. That after 23rd May. 1985. the decree- holder again initiated proceedings for execution of the decree. Thereafter, the petitioner B. D. Seth. the father of Sudhir Seth, judgment-debtor filed a writ No. 7480 of 1985 in this Court for a writ of mandamus commanding the Additional District Judge not to evict the petitioner in execution of the decree in suit No. 32 of 1977 on the ground that an allotment order has been passed in his favour on 2nd May, 1985. It may be noted here that on 23rd May, 1985 this Court held that the decree for ejectment was not null and void. The fact of the allotment order was not brought to the notice of this Court and surreptitiously an order was obtained for allotment in favour of B. D. Seth petitioner who is the father of judgment-debtor Sudhir Seth on 2nd May, 1985 from Tanvir Zafar Ali, Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur. As soon as the landlords came to know that an allotment order has been obtained in the name of B. D. Seth, they filed a revision in the court of the District Judge. Ultimately after keen contest, the writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage by the order dated 18th July 1985. Against the order dated 18th July, 1985, the petitioner went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on 13th January, 1986 passed the following order : "In the pet uliar circumstances of this case, we think that most appropriate course would be to set as the order of the High Court with a direct )n that the writ petition may be entertained and heard by the High Court on merits. The revision petition now pending before the 2nd 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 within three months from today. The appeal is disposed of accordingly." In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the case was again heard by Hon'ble Anshuman Singh. The appeal is disposed of accordingly." In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the case was again heard by Hon'ble Anshuman Singh. J. Hon'ble Anshuman Singh, J. by the judgment dated 18th August, 1987 allowed the revision filed by the landlords, set aside the allotment order dated 2nd May, 1985 and remanded the case back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur with a direction that the application for allotment be disposed of by him after affording full opportunity to the parties of adducing evidence in support of their respective cases. Writ petition No. 7480 of 1985 filed by B. D. Seth was, however, rejected as having become infructuous. 4. In view of the remand order passed by this Court on 18th August, 1987, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by an order dated 5th February, 1988 held that there was no vacancy and as such the question o allotment of the premises does not arise. It is this order dated 5th February, 1988, whirl has now been challenged in the present petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that on 10th September 1984 a warrant of possession had been issued by the executing court and as such, the property in dispute was likely to fall vacant and, consequently, vacancy arose. The view taken to the contrary in the impugned order is manifestly erroneous. 6. In order to appreciate the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to quote the actual order passed by the executing court, this has been attached as Annexure Ito the petition. It is as follows : "Aaj Prarthna Patra ejra Dlakhil dilaya jane dakhal karyalaya report ke sath pesh hua. Bad Dekhane report adesh hua ki darj rajister ho tatha parwana dakhal jari ho report dinak 27-10 -84 taj jari ho." By the above order, the executing court directed that the parwana may be issued for execution of the decree. In paragraph 25 of the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that on 10th September, 1984. the judgment- debtor filed objections along with an application for stay of the execution. In paragraph 29, it has been stated on 14th September, 1984, IV Additional District Judge, Kanpur stayed the execution of the decree, and on 1st January, 1985, the IV Additional district judge. the judgment- debtor filed objections along with an application for stay of the execution. In paragraph 29, it has been stated on 14th September, 1984, IV Additional District Judge, Kanpur stayed the execution of the decree, and on 1st January, 1985, the IV Additional district judge. Kanpur allowed to (the) objections of the judgment-debtor and held that the portion of the decree relating to eviction and delivery of possession was incapable of execution. These facts are not disputed. In the circumstances, once the execution oft he decree has been stayed and. thereafter, the decree for ejectment was declared null and void by the judgment dated 1-1-1985, the question of actually issuing of warrant of possession in pursuance of the order dated 10th September, 1984 did not rise at all. I do not see how the petitioner an rely upon the order dated 10th September, 1984 for the purpose of holding the property to be vacant when the judgment-debtor had got a stay of the execution of the decree and ultimately the decree was held to be null and void. consequently find that in the instant case no warrant of possession was actually issued in pursuance of the order of the court on 10-9-1984 because of the stay order obtained by he petitioner himself. 7. In Sri Deoji Bhai v. V Additional District Judge, Kanpur, 1979 All Rent Cas 201 it has been held that property cannot be said to be likely to fall vacant so long as the executing court has not issued a warrant for delivery of possession. It has been held as follows : "So far as the first question is concerned, it may be pointed out that in a case where a decree has been obtained against a tenant, he premises cannot be said to be likely to fall vacant so long as the executing court has not issued a warrant for delivery of possession. Accordingly, it could not be said that the shop was likely to fall vacant, and, as such, the authority had no jurisdiction to pass an order of allotment. (See Laxminarain v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, 1962 AU 213). It therefore, appears to me that if a decree had already been passed in favour of the petitioner against Prakash Chand Jain on 11-5-1973, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer could not pass the allotment order on 19-5-1973. (See Laxminarain v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, 1962 AU 213). It therefore, appears to me that if a decree had already been passed in favour of the petitioner against Prakash Chand Jain on 11-5-1973, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer could not pass the allotment order on 19-5-1973. On that date, the warrant of delivery of possession had not been issued." 8. In view of the above, 1 do not find any force in the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. First Additional District' Judge, Nainital, 1981 All Rent Cas 178: AIR 1981 SC 771 : (1981 All LJ 74). In the case of Ashok Kumar it has only been held that it is open to a landlord to move the District Magistrate for notifying vacancy under S. 16(l)(a) of the Act and also to file a release application but the question as to when the property shall be held to have fallen vacant or is about to fall vacant was not gone into by the Supreme Court as in that case the property did in fact fall vacant and possession had also been delivered to the landlord. In view of the fact of this case, the decision in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra) does not advance the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner. 10. I am constrained to observe that the petitioner is the own father of the judgment-debtor Sudhir Seth. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur misusing the powers conferred upon him under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, had passed the allotment order on 2nd May, 1985, which he could not possibly pass as there was no decree for ejectment in existence on 2nd May, 1985. The order of allotment was issued without compliance of the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules framed under the Act as held by this Court in Rent Control Revn. The order of allotment was issued without compliance of the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules framed under the Act as held by this Court in Rent Control Revn. No. 97 of 1985, S.C. Tandon v. B.D. Seth connected with Writ No. 7480 of 1985, B.D. Seth v. IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur, decided by Hon'ble Anshuman Singh, J., on 18th August, 1987.* The allotment order was, consequently, mala fide exercise of the powers conferred on the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and has been passed in collusion with the judgment-debtor in order to avoid the execution of the decree for ejectment which had been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that after the passing of the order dated 5th February, 1988 and before the filing of this petition on 22nd February, 1988, the petitioner moved an application for review of the order dated 5th February, 1988 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and also obtained an ex parte stay order directing that the order dated 5th February, 1988 be not given effect to. This order was passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 24th February, 1988. Since I have taken the view that the order dated 5th February, 1988 is a valid order, the order dated 24th February, 1988 staying the operation of the order dated 5th February, 1988 by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is, liable to be set aside. 12. In the result, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. The interim order passed by this Court on 22nd February, 1988, extended on 2441988, 1st March, 1988, 10th March, 1988, 18th March, 1988, 5th April, 1988, 29th April, 1988, 26th July, 1988 and 3rd August, 1988 as well as the order dated 24th February, 1988 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in review Case No. of 1988 Annexure VIII to the counter-affidavit, are, hereby vacated.