( 1 ) BY the judgment and order under appeal, the learned single judge made the writ petition filed by the 4th respondent to the appeal absolute in these terms:"accordingly, the order of allotment dated 24-6-69 passed by rent controller for hdmc area, dharwar in No. Rmt. sr. 1371 (Annexure-A) and the order of ejectment dated 28-3-1981 passed by him in No. Rnt. sr. 138/78-79 (Annexure-K) arc quashed. Respondent no. 1-r. gangadharan is directed to deliver vacant "possession of the premises in question to the petitioner forthwith. Respondent no. 1 shall pay the costs of the petitioner and bear his own, advocate's fce Rs. 200/-". ( 2 ) THE facts are somewhat, complex and need to be stated in detail. We are concerned with house bearing c. t. s. No. 2677, municipal No. 2715/1, hdmc no. 74/1, measuring 45 sq. Yards of ward no. l of hubli town and also of the open sile bearing c. t. s. No. 2675/41, measuring 972 sq. Yards of ward no. 1 of hubli town. The latter adjoins the former. Prior to 1967, one mahadesh prasad ramlal jingada was the tenant of the said property. He vacated the same on or about 1st august, 1967. On 27/28th october, 1968 the rent control inspector reported that the said properly was vacant to the rent controller for the hubli-dharwad municipal corporation area (the second respondent ). The said property was thereupon notified for allotment under the Provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said act' ). On 30th march, 1969 the appellant filed an application for allotment to him of the said property. The rent controller issued notice to the landlord of the said properly (the first respondent) and to the unauthorised occupant thereof (the 4th respondent ). Thereafter, the rent controller passed an order on 24th june, 1969 allotting the said property to the appellant. The 4th responsdent preferred an appeal to the deputy commissioner, district, dharwad (the third respondent) against the order of allotment. He also filed a suit, being o. s. No. 234 of 1969 in the court of the additional munsiff, hubli, for a declaration that the allotment order in favour of the appellant was null and void and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with his possession of the said property. He also filed a suit, being o. s. No. 234 of 1969 in the court of the additional munsiff, hubli, for a declaration that the allotment order in favour of the appellant was null and void and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with his possession of the said property. This suit came to be dismissed on 23rd july, 1970 as not maintainable, on 20th october, 1970, the deputy commissioner dismissed the 4th respondent's appeal against the order of allotment. Against the order of dismissal of the suit, the 4th respondent filed an appeal before the civil judge, hubli (being r. a. no. 158/70 ). This appeal came to be dismissed on 21st november, 1974 and there against, the 4th respondent preferred a second appeal in this court (r. s. a. no. 1423/74 ). Pending admission of the second appeal, the 4th respondent purchased the said property from the 1st respondent. On 1st january, 1975 the second appeal was admitted and an injunction order was issued protecting the 4th respondent's possession of the suit property. On 1st december, 1976 the 4th respondent filed an application before the rent controller, hubli, under the Provisions of Section 31-b of the said act. That application stated that the 4th respondent had occupied the said property as tenant from 1st august, 1967 and that the first respondent had not intimated the vacancy because the rent for the properly was less than Rs. 15/- per moth. The 4th respondent claimed rcgularisation of his occupation of the property from its inception. On 27th march, 1978 the 4th respondent filed a memo before this court in the second appeal. He recited briefly the facts aforementioned and applied for withdrawal of the second appeal as also the suit out of which the appeal had arisen so that he could prosecute the proceedings under Section 31-b before the rent controller of hubli against the appellant. Upon his application, this court, on 27th march, 1978 ordered and decreed that "the regular second appeal be and is hereby dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the memo". In august, 1978, the appellant filed an application for possession of the said property under Section 10 (2) of the act as there was then no order restraining the rent controller from delivering to the appellant possession of the said property which had been allotted to him. In august, 1978, the appellant filed an application for possession of the said property under Section 10 (2) of the act as there was then no order restraining the rent controller from delivering to the appellant possession of the said property which had been allotted to him. On 21st july, 1979 the rent controller passed an order that directed the 4th respondent to hand over to the appellant possession of the said properly. Thereagainst, the 4ih respondent filed an appeal and, on 25/30th august, 1980, the deputy commissioner remanded the matter to the rent controller to consider the contention on behalf of the 4th respondent that the rent of the said property was only Rs. 13/- per month and also the contention on behalf of the 4th respondent that his possession of the said property should be regularised. The rent controller, on remand, held that the rent of the said property was not less than Rs. 15/- per month when the vacancy occurred in 1967. He also noted that the order of the rent controller passed in July 1969 allotting the said property to the appellant had not been set aside and the issues raised therein were concluded and could not be reopened and, therefore, the 4th respondent could not be considered to be the lawful occupant of the said property though he purchased the same on 28th december, 1974. On 16lh april, 1981 the appellant was given possession of the said property. On 6th july, 1981 the deputy commissioner confirmed the order on remand of the rent controller. He rejected the contention of the 4th respondent that the rent of the said property was less than Rs. 15/- per month. He also noted that the order of the rent controller not having been set aside, the 4th respondent could not claim regularisation. He further noted that it was reported that the 4th respondent owned several other bouses in dharwad and hubli, which was not disputed. ( 3 ) THE order of the deputy commissioner was impugned in the writ petition. Several contentions were raised at the hearing thereof. The learned single judge accepted two of the contentions. He held that the Provisions of clause (ii) of sub-section (5) of Section 8 had not been complied with when the appellant made the application (on 30th of march, 1969) for allotment of the said property, the application was, therefore, invalid. Several contentions were raised at the hearing thereof. The learned single judge accepted two of the contentions. He held that the Provisions of clause (ii) of sub-section (5) of Section 8 had not been complied with when the appellant made the application (on 30th of march, 1969) for allotment of the said property, the application was, therefore, invalid. The learned judge rejected the appellants' contention that it was not open to the 4th respondent now to question the legality of tic order of allotment since the allotment Order, confirmed the appeal, bad become final after disposal of the suit and the appeal filed by the 4th respondent. In his view, the principles of res judicata could not be applied merely because the petitioner had been pursuing wrong remedies instead of filing writ petition after disposal of the appeal filed by him. The learned judge also took the view that "the expression 'unauthorised occupation' or 'unauthorised occupant' used in Section 10-a of the act was not so comprehensive as to include in its fold rank trespassers, because "unauthorised occupation and trespass are not synonymous". In this view of the matter, the learned judge passed the order that we have quoted above. ( 4 ) THE rent controller made an order on 24th june, 1969 allotting the said property to the appellant. The 4th respondent's appeal therefrom was dismissed by the deputy commissioner on 20th october, 1970. The 4th respondent also filed a suit to challenge the same order of the rent controller and he prayed that order be declared as null and void and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with his possession of the said property. The suit was dismissed. The first appeal therefrom was dismissed. While the second appeal was pending in this court, the 4th respondent filed a memo asking for leave to withdraw the second appeal and the suit out of which that appeal had arisen to "prosecute his aforesaid Section 31-b and 31-c of Karnataka Rent Control Act proceedings before rent controller, hubli, against respondent-1". The second appeal was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the memo. The second appeal was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the memo. ( 5 ) WE have no doubt in our mind that, upon the withdrawal of the second appealas afore said, the order of allotment of the said property in favour of the appellant became final and binding and could not be challenged by the 4th respondent any more. ( 6 ) IT was contended that the suit had been dismissed only on the ground of maintainability and it was, therefore, permissible for the 4th respondent to challenge the order of allotment in the writ petition. It was also contended that since the suit had been withdrawn, everything was open. We do not find in the order of this court permission to withdraw with suit. In any event, once the second appeal was withdrawn, it was not open to the plaintiff to seek the relief therein in any other proceeding unless he bad asked for and bad been given by the court specific leave in that regard. The only leave that the 4th respondent asked for when he sought leave to withdraw the second appeal was to prosecute his application under Section 31-b and that was the leave that he was given. It was, therefore, not open to the 4th respondent to agitate the validity of the order of allotment in the writ petition. ( 7 ) WHEN the order of allotment of the said property is in favour of the appellant, there can be no question of regularisation of the occupation of the said property by the 4th respondent the two orders cannot stand together. Since it was not open to the 4th respondent to impugn the order of allotment of the said property to the appellant after the withdrawal of the second appeal by him, he could not claim regularisation of his occupation to the said property. ( 8 ) IN our view, therefore, the judgment and order of the learned single judgemust be set aside. ( 9 ) BEFORE we part with the matter, we wish to say that we should not be understood as agreeing with the distinction drawn by the learned judge between "unauthorised occupation" and "trespass" in the context of the act. ( 8 ) IN our view, therefore, the judgment and order of the learned single judgemust be set aside. ( 9 ) BEFORE we part with the matter, we wish to say that we should not be understood as agreeing with the distinction drawn by the learned judge between "unauthorised occupation" and "trespass" in the context of the act. The phrases "unauthorised occupant" and "unauthorised occupation"are, in the first place, not to be found in Section 10-a. Secondly, for the purpose of the Act, he who is not in occupation of premises under the Provisions of Section 4 (2), is in unauthorised occupation thereof. ( 10 ) THE appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The writ petitionis dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .