JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The dispute relates to quarter No. 2, Talat Lodge, house No. 4/172, Amirunishan, Dodhpur, Aligarh. In this quarter, one Dr. Arsad was a tenant. He vacated the accommodation. After Dr. Arsad vacated the accommodation, on 20th August, 1983, the property was declared as vacant. After declaring the property as vacated, the property was allotted to Km. Naeem Begum Nyazi. 3. The objection of the petitioner, who is the owner of the property, was that the quarter was a new construction and the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are not applicable and, consequently, the case of the petitioner was that she was entitled to possession of the property and no allotment order could be passed in respect of the said property. 4. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the plea of the petitioner by his order dated 4th October, 1983. As a consequence thereof, an allotment order was passed in favour of respondent No. 3. Aggrieved by the order declaring vacancy and allotting the property to respondent No. 3, two revisions were filed under Section 18 of the Act. One more revision was filed by the persons who could not get an allotment order. All these three revisions were connected and decided by a common judgment dated 23rd October, 1984. The effect was that the owner's contention that the property did not come under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, was rejected and the property was allotted in favour of respondent No. 3 as stated above. 5. Aggrieved by the decision of the Rent Control and Eviction officer as well as the revisional Court, the present petition has been filed. 6. It is not disputed that the petitioner is the owner of the premises in dispute. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed in this Court, it has been categorically stated that though the contradiction was made prior to 1972, it was first assessed in the year 1974-75. In the circumstances, it is clear that the first assessment of the property was made in the year 1974-75. 7. The petitioner has also filed a copy of the assessment order, which clearly shows that the first assessment was made with effect from 1974-75. 8. In the circumstances, it is clear that the first assessment of the property was made in the year 1974-75. 7. The petitioner has also filed a copy of the assessment order, which clearly shows that the first assessment was made with effect from 1974-75. 8. In Om Prakash Gupta v. Vijendra Pal Gupta, 1982 ARC Volume I, 392, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the effect of Section 2 sub-clause (2) of the Act and as to when the property shall come under the provisions of the said Act. In this case it was held that if there is an assessment in respect of a building, the date of first assessment will be deemed to be the date of completion of the building. Unless ten years from such date expire, the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 would not apply. The principles laid down in this case fully apply to the facts of the present case. 9. In the instant case the first assessment was made with effect from 1.4.1975. Consequently, the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 become applicable with effect from 1.4.1986. In the circumstances on 20th August, 1983, the order declaring vacancy could not have been passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as the Act was not applicable in respect of the property in dispute. For the same reason since the Act could not apply, no allotment order could be passed in favour of respondent No. 3 in the year 1983. Consequently, contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the Act did not apply no allotment order could be passed, is the correct contention. The view to the contrary taken by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as well as by the revisional Court, is manifestly erroneous. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has urged that since he has got possession of the property on 25th August, 1987 and on that date the Act applies, therefore, he has a right to remain in possession of the property. I do not agree with this submission. Respondent No. 3 came into the possession of the property after the filing of this petition in this Court and by virtue of an allotment order passed in his favour on 4th October, 1983. I do not agree with this submission. Respondent No. 3 came into the possession of the property after the filing of this petition in this Court and by virtue of an allotment order passed in his favour on 4th October, 1983. On 4th October, 1983, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the allotment order as such, the question of having a valid possession of the property in dispute does not arise. Respondent No. 3 cannot remain in possession of the property by virtue of an allotment order, which was wholly void and without jurisdiction. 11. In the result, the petition is allowed. The orders dated 20th August, 1983 declaring vacancy, the allotment order dated 4th October, 1983 and the order of the revisional Court dated 23rd October, 1984 are, hereby quashed. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer is directed to hand over possession of the property to the petitioner after getting it vacated from respondent No. 3. 12. It is, however, made clear that in case now the owner of the property wants to let out the premises then it will be open to respondent No. 3 to apply also for allotment of the same. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.