JUDGMENT : R.A. Sharma, J. A premises consisting of first floor portion of house No. 88/451, Humayun Bagh, Chamanganj, Klanpur Nagar (here-in-after referred to as the premises) of which the Respondent No. 4 was the landlord fell vacant and an intimation to that effect was given to the Rent Control & Eviction Officer, Kanpur (here-in-after referred to as the R.C.E.O.). Vacancy was accordingly declared by the R.C.E.O. No allotment having been made within 21 days from the date of receipt of the intimation, the landlord nominated the Petitioner on 29-10-1982 for allotment of the premises under Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (herein after referred to as the Act). Petitioner accordingly made an application for allotment in her favour before the R.C.E.O. No action having been taken on the said nomination, the landlord again on 5-12-1988 submitted his nomination in favour of the Petitioner under the aforesaid provisions for allotment in her favour. The R.C.E.O. inspite of the nomination of the landlord did not make any allotment in favour of the Petitioner and kept the proceedings pending for about 2 1/2 years. In the mean time the landlord permitted the Petitioner to occupy the premises on 31-8-1988 and the Petitioner has been in continuous possession thereof since then. It appears that a letter dated 8-1-1991 on the landlord revoking the nomination made in 1988 in favour of the Petitioner was filed before the R.C.E.O. Thereafter the R.C.E.O. started the proceedings effectively and by his order dated 20-7-1991 allotted the premises in favour of the Respondent No. 3 and rejected the application of allotment of the Petitioner. Against this order the Petitioner filed a revision, which has also been dismissed by order dated 1-11-1991. It is against these to orders that this writ petition has been filed for their quashing and for other appropriate reliefs in connection therewith. 2. Parties have exchanged affidavits and 1 have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Against this order the Petitioner filed a revision, which has also been dismissed by order dated 1-11-1991. It is against these to orders that this writ petition has been filed for their quashing and for other appropriate reliefs in connection therewith. 2. Parties have exchanged affidavits and 1 have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has made three submissions, namely, (i) Petitioner, being nominee of the landlord under Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act, was entitled to be allotted the premises, (ii), the Petitioner was not %n unauthorized occupant an I her application could not have been rejected on that ground; and (iii) revision filed by the Petitioner was dismissed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned Counsel for the Respondents, apart from controverting the aforesaid submissions, has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the revision and this writ petition filed by the Petitioner are not maintainable 4. The preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondents can not be sustained. An applicant for allotment can always challenge an order rejecting his application and allotting the accommodation to the rival applicant. The position of the Petitioner was much better than a rival applicant. As mentioned above, the Petitioner was a nominee of the landlord under Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act and the R.C.E.O. was bound to allot the premises in her favour unless her application is rejected for reasons to be recorded in accordance with law. The decision of this Court in Syed. Mohd Fahim v. 3rd Additional District Judge, Kanpur 1978 ARC 412, on which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the Respondents cannot help him. In the case of Syed. Mohd. Fahim (supra) the application for allotment of the Petitioner therein was rejected on the ground that Sub-section (2) of Section 17 did not apply to a residential accommodation and nothing was shown that the rejection of his application...was erroneous or illegal. The aforesaid findings were upheld by this Court. In the case of Syed. Mohd. Fahim (supra) the application for allotment of the Petitioner therein was rejected on the ground that Sub-section (2) of Section 17 did not apply to a residential accommodation and nothing was shown that the rejection of his application...was erroneous or illegal. The aforesaid findings were upheld by this Court. After upholding the findings, rejecting the application for allotment of the Petitioner in that case, this Court observed that, "if his application for allotment is rejected, he cannot have any legal interest to challenge the allotment order made in favour of Respondent no 3" The aforesaid observation cannot be read to mean that an applicant for allotment does not have a right to challenge the rejection of his application, and the allotment in favour of a rival applicant by means of revision or writ petition. When the orders of the court s rejecting the application for allotment of a person is upheld, that person ceases to have an interest in the matter of allotment to another person and in that view of the matter the observation was made by this Court to the effect that the Petitioner in that case cannot challenge the allotment order made in favour of another person. After the application for allotment of a person has been validly rejected, it does not concern him as to whom the premises is allotted. The position would however, be different, if the order rejecting the application for allotment is erroneous and unsustainnble. In such a case the person whose application has been rejected can challenge by way of revision and the writ petition not only the order rejecting his application but also the order allotting the promises to the rival applicant In the instant case, for the reasons given below the order rejecting the application of the Petitioner being erroneous the Petitioner has the right to challenge the impugned order rejecting his application and allotting the premises to Respondent No. 3. 5. Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act enables the landlord to name a person of his choice for allotment of the promises if the allotment order in respect thereof is not made within 21 days from the date of receipt of intimation. Sub-section (1) of this section is reproduced below: 17. Condition of making allotment order. 5. Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act enables the landlord to name a person of his choice for allotment of the promises if the allotment order in respect thereof is not made within 21 days from the date of receipt of intimation. Sub-section (1) of this section is reproduced below: 17. Condition of making allotment order. (1) where the District Magistrate receives an intimation, under Sub-section (1) of Section 15, of the vacancy or expected vacancy of building any allotment order in respect of that building shall be made and communicated to the landlord within to Twenty-one days from the date of receipt of such intimation, and where no such order is so made or communicated within the said period, the landlord may intimate to the District Magistrate the name of a person of his choice, and thereupon the District Magistrate shall allot the building in favour of the person so nominated unless for special and adequate reason to be recorded, he allots it to any other person within ten days from the receipt of intimation of such nomination. In this connection reference may also be made to Rule 10(7) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (here-in after referred to as the Rules) which is reproduced below; 10. Allotment Procedure (7) The power of the District Magistrate u/s 17(1) to disregard the nomination by the landlord in the event of the District Magistrate's failure to make the allotment order within twenty-one days from the date of receipt of intimation of vacancy or expected vacancy of a building shall be exercised very sparingly and only when for a public purpose of an urgent nature, the District Magistrate considers it necessary so to do. From the perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that if the, landlord has nominated a person for allotment after the prescribed period, the District Magistrate is bound to allot the premises in favour of the nominated person unless for special or adequate reasons to be recorded he allots it to another person within ten days from the receipt of the intimation of such nomination The power to ignore the nomination of the landlord and to allot the premises to another person can be exercised by the District Magistrate very sparingly and only when for a public purpose of an urgent nature he considers it necessary so to do Unless the building is allotted for a public purpose of an urgent nature it is not open to the District Magistrate to ignore the nomination. The allotment of a building after the landlord has communicated his nomination to the District Magistrate under Sub-section (1) of Section 17 to any other applicant is prohibited in view of the provisions of Rule 10(7) and the only exception has been made in favour of the allotment for public purpose of an urgent nature. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Mandir Ram Janki v. Narendra Kumar 1985 (1) ARC 241, wherein it was laid down as follows: A bare reading of this provision indicates that the terms of the provision that the order of allotment shall be passed by the authority concerned within 21 days are mandatory. No exception has been provided by the legislature. This is evident from the fact that immediately after the expiry of 21 days a right accrue in favour of the landlord to nominate his tenant and the legislative scheme appears to be that in the" normal course the nominee of the landlord should be allotted the accommodation. At this stage, the contents of Rule 10(7) of the Rules may be considered. This rule provides that the direction of the District Magistrate u/s 17(1) to disregard the nominee of the landlord, in the event of District Magistrate's failure in making an allotment order within 21 days from the date of the receipt of the communication of the vacancy or expected vacancy of the accommodation, shall be exercised very sparingly and only for a public purpose. 6. 6. The allotment of the premises in favour of the Respondent No. 3 by no stretch of imagination can be said to be for public purpose of as urgent nature. In fact no claim has been laid by the Respondent No. 3 for treating the allotment in her favour of public purpose of an urgent nature. The allotment as such made in favour of the Respondent No. 3 after the nomination of the Petitioner cannot be sustained. 7. In this connection, learned Counsel for the Respondents argued that nomination made by the landlord in favour of the Petitioner in 1988 has been withdrawn in 1991 and as such, no advantage can be taken by the Petitioner of such a nomination As mentioned herein before the nomination was made in favour of the Petitioner by the landlord in 1988 and she was also given the possession of the premises and an agreement to that effect between the landlord and the Petitioner was also executed. The Petitioner has remained in possession for more than 2 1/2 years after the nomination. When the nomination is acted upon by the nominee and she enters into the possession of the premises with the consent of the landlord, it is not open to the landlord to withdraw the nomination. Under these circumstances the landlord is estopped from, withdrawing the nomination. In this connection it may also be observed that the conduct of the R.C.E.O. does not appear to be fair. It was his duty to make allotment order in favour of the nominee immediately after the nomination was received under Sub-section (I) of Section 17 of the Act, unless the allotment is made for public purpose of an urgent nature. The R.C.E.O. has almost slept over the matter for more than 2 1/2 years and resumed the proceedings effectively only after the withdrawal of the nomination was obtained from the landlord. Such an action cannot be justified from any point of view and appears to be absolutely unfair and arbitrary. 8. As regards the second submission, it may be mentioned that Petitioner was not an unauthorised occupant. She was given the possession of the premise with the consent of the landlord. The submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondents is that the Petitioner was put into possession of the premises by the landlord before giving the consent in writing. 8. As regards the second submission, it may be mentioned that Petitioner was not an unauthorised occupant. She was given the possession of the premise with the consent of the landlord. The submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondents is that the Petitioner was put into possession of the premises by the landlord before giving the consent in writing. In short the argument is that the Petitioner occupied the premises on the bias of the oral consent of the landlord and the written consent was given to her later on. Presuming it is so, it does not make any difference. The possession of the Petitioner from the date of the consent in writing of the landlord shall be taken to be valid. In view of the provisions of Rule 10(5), (d), which is reproduced below, a person, who has entered into possession of a building with the written consent of the landlord cannot be said to bi an unauthorised occupant. 10. (5)(d) : For accommodating a person who has entered into unauthorised occupation of the building or any part thereof without the written consent to the landlord. The object of this Rule is to protect the interest of the landlord, otherwise due to pendency of the proceedings for allotment for considerably long time, the premises has to remain vacant, causing financial loss to the landlord. In the instant case the R.C.E.O., as mentioned above, kept the proceedings pending for more than 2 1/2 years. If the Petitioner was not given the possession of the premises, the landlord would have been deprived of the rent as the house would have remained vacant during all this period, which would have caused a great financial loss to the landlord without any fault on his part. That apart, even if the Petitioner is treated to be an unauthorised occupant it is not the case where her claim should be rejected m that ground. The provisions of Sub-rule (5), of Rule 10 merely declares that the building shall not ordinarily be allotted to the persons mentioned therein which includes an unauthorised occupant also. As the aforesaid provision uses the word 'ordinarily' under special circumstances allotment of a building can be made in favour of the unauthorised occupant also. 9. The provisions of Sub-rule (5), of Rule 10 merely declares that the building shall not ordinarily be allotted to the persons mentioned therein which includes an unauthorised occupant also. As the aforesaid provision uses the word 'ordinarily' under special circumstances allotment of a building can be made in favour of the unauthorised occupant also. 9. As the writ petition is being allowed on the first two submissions, it is not necessary to deal with the third question raised by the learned Counsel. 10. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs. The impugned orders dated 20-7-1991 and 1-11-1991 passed by Respondents Nos. 2 and 1 respectively are quashed. The Respondent No 2 is directed to decide the application for allotment of the Petitioner on the basis of nomination given by the landlord in her favour in accordance with Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act, read with Sub-rule (7) of Rule 10 expeditiously.