JUDGMENT R.R.K. Trivedi 1. In this writ petition, by order dated 3rd January, 1992 petitioner was directed to serve respondent no. 1 personally as well as by registered notice through office. Petitioner has filed an affidavit of service which shows that the notice was tendered for acceptance on 13th January, 1992 but she refused to accept the notice. The notice was also sent by registered post by office. The notice was sent on 19th January, 1992 fixing 13th July, 1992. The notice of acknowledgement has not been received back unserved. In the facts and circumstances service is deed sufficient on the respondent no. 1. 2. This petition has been filed challenging order dated 27th November, 1991 passed by learned I Additional district Judge. Aligarh in Appeal No. 4 of 1991 by which application of petitioner, for allotment of the accommodation in dispute after reconstruction, has been dismissed. Facts giving rise to this writ petition ate that the landlady respondent no. 1 filed an application under section 21 (1) (b) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, here-in-after referred to as 'Act', for release of the accommodation in dispute and for demolition and reconstruction. Her application was allowed by Prescribed Authority by order dated 11th April, 1982. The release application was filed against original tenant late Gyan Chand who died during the pendency of the application and after his death his heirs including petitioner were brought on record Against order of the Prescribed Authority dated 11th April, 1982, only petitioner filed appeal which was decided on basis of the compromise entered into between petitioner and respondent no. 1. A copy of the compromise has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The appeal was decided in terms of the compromise by order dated 21st January, 1987. The possession of the shop in dispute was actually handed over by petitioner on 21st May, 1990 to respondent no. 1 for reconstruction. The reconstruction was about to be completed when petitioner served a notice on respondent no. 1 dated 7th July, 1990 calling upon her to inform about the date by registered post for delivery of possession within a week from the receipt of the notice, it was also mentioned that If possession is not delivered the proceedings shall be initiated before the competent court. 1 dated 7th July, 1990 calling upon her to inform about the date by registered post for delivery of possession within a week from the receipt of the notice, it was also mentioned that If possession is not delivered the proceedings shall be initiated before the competent court. As possession was not given to the petitioner, he filed an application for allotment before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/Additional District Magistrate (civil supplies), Aligarh on 20th July 1990. The application is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The respondent no. 1 filed a written statement opposing the aforesaid application of petitioner in which she raised various pleas. In support of their pleadings, parties filed affidavits. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after hearing both the parties allowed application of petitioner for allotment by his order dated 8th March, 1991. In this order, respondent no. 1 was directed to hand over possession of the shop on basis of the compromise entered into between the patties after raising partition wail. It would not be out of place to mention that before demolition there were three shops one was occupied by landlady, another was occupied by petitioner and third shop was occupied by another tenant Kailash Chandra. It appears that respondent no. 1 had constructed one shop and there was no partition wall. Rent Control and Eviction Officer therefore, directed to partition the shop which was necessary for delivery of possession to petitioner. It was also directed that the tent shall be calculated on basis of the expenses incurred in constructing the shop. This order of Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Aligarh was challenged in appeal by respondent no. 1 which was allowed by respondent no. 2 by order dated 27th November, 1991 against which present petition has been filed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. A already stated that in spite of the service no body has but in appearance for the respondent no. 1. Appellate authority has set aside the order of allotment and dismissed the application of petitioner on three grounds. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. A already stated that in spite of the service no body has but in appearance for the respondent no. 1. Appellate authority has set aside the order of allotment and dismissed the application of petitioner on three grounds. The first ground taken by the appellate authority is that the building was completed on 18th June, 1990 and as the application was filed by petitioner for re-allotment on 20th July, 1990 which was filed two days beyond time as provided under Rule 20 of the Act, the application was thus time barred and is liable to be rejected. The second ground taken by the learned appellate authority is that all the heirs did not claim for allotment tad it cannot be allotted In favour of petitioner alone. The third Infirmity noticed by the appellate authority in the order of allotment is that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has directed the land lady to raise partition wall for which he had no authority in law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 7th July, 1990 petitioner had already served a notice on respondent no 1 to hand over possession and to intimate the date within a week for handing over possession of the shop. This application was referred to in the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. It was also mentioned in Paragraph no. 12 of the affidavit filed by petitioner in support of his application for allotment The application for allotment was filed immediately thereafter on 20th July 1990. The appellate authority without taking into consideration this notice has illegally held that the application of petitioner was time barred. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that the petitioner could not have any information of the intimation given by the respondent no. 1 about completion of the building to the municipal authority and if this date is taken to be a date of completion the great injustice shall be caused to the prospective allottees of the building which was vacated by them in good faith for being demolition and reconstruction. 1 about completion of the building to the municipal authority and if this date is taken to be a date of completion the great injustice shall be caused to the prospective allottees of the building which was vacated by them in good faith for being demolition and reconstruction. Rule 20 which is relevant for the purposes is being quoted below : "Application for re-allotment (Section 24 (2) (1) An application by a tenant under sub-section (2) of section 24 or allotment of a new building or any one of them shall be made within one month from the date on which the construction of the building sought to be allotted Is complete. (2) The application shall also state the extent of the tenant's requirements regarding accommodation., Explanation-In this rule the date of completion of construction has the same meaning as in the Explanation (a) of sub-section (2) of section 2". Explanation (a) to sub-section (2) of section 2 of the Act provides two dates, firstly the date of completion reported to or otherwise recorded by the local authority having jurisdiction and in the case of a building subject to assessment, the date on which the first assessment thereof comes into effect, and where the said dates are different, the earliest of the said dates. It further provides that in the absence of any such report, record or assessment, the date on which it is actually occupied In my opinion, the date of completion under Rule 20 cannot be given effect unless its notice is also given to the tenant. If Rule 20, as it stands is enforced literally, it may result In irreparable harassment and prejudice to those who claim re-allotment under section 74 of the Act It can be easily defeated by giving intimation to the local authority secretly about which the tenant may not have any notice. Even without completion of the buildings notice for completion may be given and which may be acted upon by the local authority. Even without completion of the buildings notice for completion may be given and which may be acted upon by the local authority. The intention of the law cannot be such The purpose and object behind Rule 20 appears that, after completion of the building, tenant should promptly act, so that landlord may not suffer loss of rent, after incurring investment in raising new construction Rule 20 should therefore be interpreted in such a manner that it may act lose its purpose and object and at the same time it may not defeat the purpose behind section 24 of the Act which preserves a valuable right and claim of tenant regarding allotment of building after demolition and reconstruction. In the circumstances, the completion of the building if reported to the local authority, the landlord should also inform tenant simultaneously sailing upon him to take steps for allotment and, in case, in spite of suoh intimation the application is not moved by tenant for allotment under sub section (2) of section 24 of the Act within 20 days, he may be deprived of this valuable right. 5. For computing period of limitation for making an application or appeal, a date has to be ascertained invariably, from which the period of limitation starts running. It is settled law that limitation starts running from the date of the actual or constructive knowledge when the right to make an application accrues in my opinion, the same principle can be safely applied in the present case also. 'If the provisions of Rule 20 are mechanically enforced, the chances of injustice and prejudice to the tenants cannot be ruled out as the landlord may intimate the local authority about completion of the building secretly and the tenant may not have any knowledge of the same Otherwise also, he is not a party in any manner to the assessment proceedings before the local authority. There is absolutely no chance so far as he is concerned, to have knowledge from the authority about the date reported by the landlord about completion of the building or recorded by the local authority itself for assessment of the building for purposes of tax in these circumstances a practical and workable view must be adopted by the courts. There is absolutely no chance so far as he is concerned, to have knowledge from the authority about the date reported by the landlord about completion of the building or recorded by the local authority itself for assessment of the building for purposes of tax in these circumstances a practical and workable view must be adopted by the courts. Before enforcing period of limitation of 30 days, they must satisfy themselves that tenant had knowledge of the date of completion reported by the landlord or otherwise recorded by the local authority or about the assessment of the building for tax, which ever may be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, without fixing a date of this knowledge provision of 30 days prescribed for moving application for allotment cannot be given effect to. In the present case, the appellate authority has miserably failed to fix any such date in absence of which it could not be said that the application of the petitioner was time barred. 6. Further in the present case, there is additional fact that the petitioner gave a notice to the respondent no. 1 calling upon her to hand over possession and on her failure he filed an application within 15 days, the appellate authority without considering this additional fact illegally held that the application of the petitioner for allotment was time barred. The second objection against application of the petitioner for allotment, in view of the appellate authority, is that all the heirs have not joined in making application. In my opinion, this ground too could not be a valid ground for rejecting application for allotment though all the heirs of original tenant of an accommodation specially accommodation for business purposes, may not have moved application for allotment or may not join the one such heir praying for allotment but the allotment cannot be postponed on this ground as the allotment shall be ultimately for the benefit of all the heirs. In my opinion, it cannot have any prejudicial effect on landlord in any manner, If any one of the heirs makes an application for allotment given full and complete facts necessary In this regard, the allotment order should be passed. The order of allotment may mention that it shall be for the benefit of entire body of heirs of the original tenant. The order of allotment may mention that it shall be for the benefit of entire body of heirs of the original tenant. There is nothing in the Act or Rules that allotment under section 24 (2) can be postponed Indefinitely on this ground. In my opinion, the view takes by the appellate authority is wholly misconceived and against the scheme and object of the Act. The object of the Act Is to provide accommodation to the tenants promptly and swiftly and right of allotment cannot be defeated on the ground of non-joining of other heirs with the one praying for allotment. There is one more reason that objection of respondent no. 1 against allotment claimed by petitioner, should net have been accepted. Against order of Prescribed Authority only petitioner had filed appeal, which was decided on basis of compromise dated 21-1-87 and respondent no. 1 had agreed that after reconstruction shop shall be allotted to petitioner, she was bound by the aforesaid compromise and could not be heard in challenging right of petitioner to claim for allotment. 7. The third objection by the appellate authority is that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer could not direct the alter accommodation or raise any other construction. In my opinion, this objection too was wholly misconceived. If raising of partition wall or putting shutters was necessary for handing over possession, such order could be passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, or by the appellate authority under Rule 22 (f) of the Rules in exercise of inherent powers. It is apparent from the record that before demolition the shop was occupied by three persons. Petitioner was one of them and he was entitled for allotment only one shop. It appears that respondent no. 1 deliberately constructed long shop without providing any partition and without providing for shutters etc. as agreed by her in the compromise dated 21-1-87 The appellate authority has failed to consider that the whole shop could not be allotted to the petitioner and he has rightly demanded demarcation or partition of the shop, for which he may be entitled The view takes by the appellate authority is not just and proper In the facts and circumstances of the case. In my opinion, the application for allotment of the petitioner has been illegally dismissed the order of the appellate authority suffers from manifest error of law and cannot be sustained. In my opinion, the application for allotment of the petitioner has been illegally dismissed the order of the appellate authority suffers from manifest error of law and cannot be sustained. 8. The writ petition is consequently allowed. The order dated 27th November. 1991, passed in Appeal Mo. 4 of 1991 by 1 Additional District Judge, Aligarh is hereby quashed and the order of Kent Control and Eviction Officer is restored which shall be given effect and petitioner shall be provided possession within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before authority concerned. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.