JUDGMENT B.L.Loomba, J. 1. The controversy in this writ petitioner relates to a portion of house no. 1028 situate in Mohalla Khairabad, Sultanpur. In May, 1987 one Shiv Narain Misra applied for allotment of this accommodation in his favour. The Rent Control Inspector made inspection on 26-5-1987 and reported that the landlady was performing last rites of a deceased member of her family and inspection will be made again. On 9-6-1987 the Rent Control Inspector visited the place again and reported the premises to be in the own occupation of the landlady and the accommodation having never been let out before. Shri Narain Misra, it appears, did not press his application and the landlady moved an application for release. Report of the Rent Control Inspector was again called and in this third report dated 24-17-1988 it was mentioned that family of the landlady does not reside in the said house and the same is locked. It was, however, mentioned in the report that the landlady be heard before any further action is taken in the matter. Notice was directed to be' issued to the landlady requiring her to appear on 27-12-1988. In the meantime, respondent no. 2 Ram Dular Yadav applied for allotment of the disputed accommodation on 7-11-1988. The Rent Control Officer passed orders on 12-1-1989 for notifying the vacancy and on 18-1-1989 while considering the applications for allotment order for allotment was passed in favour of Ram Dular Yadav. 2. The landlady filed revision about the declaration of the vacancy and the other order of allotment, Learned Additional District Judge, Sultanpur by his judgment and order dated 16-9-1989 allowed the revision and set aside the impugned order and removed the case back to the Rent Control Officer with the direction that he will ascertain the vacancy in accordance with rule 8 of the Rules under the Act and, if he notifies the vacancy to take up the proceedings for allotment in accordance with rules 9 and 10 of the Rules. Allottee respondent Ram Dular Yadav had, meanwhile, taken possession over the accommodation in pursuance of the allotment order in his favour. The landlady moved application for restoration of possession on 18-9-1989 and the Rent Control Officer issued notice against the respondent in Form C as provided in rule 14 of the Rules requiring him to band over possession to the landlady within one week. The landlady moved application for restoration of possession on 18-9-1989 and the Rent Control Officer issued notice against the respondent in Form C as provided in rule 14 of the Rules requiring him to band over possession to the landlady within one week. On 27-9-1989 the landlady moved another application praying that the order for delivery of possession by use of force and with police help be issued in Form D. The Rent Control Officer, however, instead of issuing order in Form D sent another notice to the respondent requiring him to hand over possession to the landlady within 15 days as otherwise he may be evicted by force. 3. When the efforts of the landlady to secure possession failed, the present writ petition was filed on 17-10-1989 with the allegations that she was entitled to be put back in possession after the order regarding notification of vacancy and for allotment had been set aside in revision under Section 18 of the Act. It was alleged that the Rent Control Officer was acting under the influence of respondent no. 2 who was then a Deputy Minister in U. P. Government The Rent Control Officer was eventually impleaded as respondent in his personal capacity on the basis of personal allegations of taking action in the matter under the influence and pressure of the respondent. 4. It may be noticed that the order regarding notification of vacancy and for allotment was set aside by the Additional District Judge with the finding that the same were passed in violation of the requirements of rules 8, 9 and 10 of the Rules. The Rent Control Officer instead of putting up the petitioner landlady in possession proceeded with the process of issue of notice to the landlady again and after a report dated 19-10-1989 of the Rent Control Inspector was obtained to the effect that the landlady was not living in the house and was reported to be living elsewhere and out of Sultanpur, treated the service of notice to the landlady sufficient by affixation under rule 8 (2) and passed another order dated 9-11-1989. There in it was held that from the material on record, it appears that the landlady did not require this accommodation for her use and occupation and the vacancy was justifiably to be notified but in the interest of justice and the notice was directed to be issued at the address of the landlady in village Kharakpur and also at the reported adress in Mohalla Pakeezganj, Sultanpur. The case was directed to be put for further orders on 15-11-1989. The landlady apprehending another allotment moved an application whereupon it was directed by this court that no order of allotment in this matter shall be issued by the Rent Control Officer till further orders of this Court. 5. The short question which requires consideration is as to the right of the landlady to be put back in possession. The legal position does not appear in doubt and is quite clear that after the setting aside of the order of notification of vacancy and that of the allotment in favour of respondent, it is necessary that the landlady be put back in poseession. The person who got possession in pursuance of the order of allotment has to deliver back the possession to the landlord after the setting aside of the order of allotment- Section 18 (3) of the Act is clear in this regard. It provides that where the order under Section 16 of the Act is rescinded, the District Magistrate shall place the parties back in the position which they would have occupied but for such allotment and may for that purpose use or caused to be used such force as may be necessary. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Shrimati Usha Rani v. State of U. P., in writ petition No. 5066 of 1989. One of the points decided therein was that after the setting aside of the order of allotment, possession of the premises is to be restored to her until the matter of release and allotment is finally adjudicated upon. In G. S. Barrow v. District Magistrate, 1989 (1) SVLR (C), the Honourable Supreme Court decided that the possession of a person after setting aside the order of allotment becomes illegal and the landlord has to be put back in possession. 7. In G. S. Barrow v. District Magistrate, 1989 (1) SVLR (C), the Honourable Supreme Court decided that the possession of a person after setting aside the order of allotment becomes illegal and the landlord has to be put back in possession. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent could not refer to any decision where under the respondent can be permitted to remain in possession even after setting aside of the order of allotment in his favour. The Rent Control Officer in this case ought to have issued the order in Form D so as to put back the landlady in possession after dispossessing the respondent by force. The respondent's only explanation for not vacating the premises has been that he was not served. The respondent now being aware of the proceedings would vacate the premises forthwith and on his failure to do so he shall be dispossessed and the landlady put back in possession under notice to be issued in Form D of the Rules. 8. The writ petition is allowed and the Rent Control Officer concerned is directed to act according to law and as per the directions contained above without any further delay. Petition allowed.