Judgment : N.L. Ganguly 1. THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is by the landlords of premises No. 2/33 (old)r 2/238, Bhotia, Parao, Haldwani, District Nainital. The petitioners prayed for a writ or a direction quashing the order dated 5-1-93 and 4-7-93 passed by the City Magistrate exercising the powers of the Prescribed Authority under U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Further it was prayed that a direction be issued to the respondent no. 1 to decide the revision, arising out of the orders dated 5-1-93 and 4-7-93 within a reasonable time to be fixed by the High Court. 2. THE premises mentioned above belonged to Dr. Sumitra Vinayak the mother of the petitioners. THE petitioners became owners by inheritance of the property through a will dated 7-10-91. Dr. Smt. Sumitra Vinayak died on 19-8-92. THE premises in dispute was formerly in the tenancy of Labour Commissioner, Kumaun Mandal Haldwani, who vacated the premises on 20-11-92. THE premises was declared as vacant. THE petitioners pleaded that they needed the premises in question for their personal use and occupation and sought for the release. The release application of the landlord-petitioners was opposed by a prospective allottee, the Regional Food Controller, who had filed a letter dated 4-7-92 said to have been written by Dr. Amrit Lal, father of the petitioners offering to let out his share in the premises in dispute. The respondent no. 2 without considering the affidavits of the petitioners in support of the release application relying upon the evidence adduced on behalf of the Regional Food Controller rejected the release application of the petitioners by order dated 4-1-93. The petitioners denied to have issued the letter dated 4-7-92 by Dr. Amrit Lal, who had no authority to let out the premises in dispute. 3. THE petitioners filed revision under section 18 of the Act against the decision of the Prescribed Authority which was numbered as Revision No. 2 of 1993 and is pending. THE respondent no. 2 is said to have passed orders for allotment under section 16 of the Act on 5-1-93. THE petitioners filed a revision against the allotment order dated 5-1-1993 before the District Judge under section 18 of the Act which was numbered as Rent Control Revision No. 1 of 1993 and is pending. THE respondent no. 2 is said to have passed orders for allotment under section 16 of the Act on 5-1-93. THE petitioners filed a revision against the allotment order dated 5-1-1993 before the District Judge under section 18 of the Act which was numbered as Rent Control Revision No. 1 of 1993 and is pending. THE Incharge District Judge, while admitting the revision filed by the petitioners passed an interim order of stay dated 8-1-1993 quoted as under :- "9-C. Heard, issue notice, fixing 2-2-93 for hearing and disposal. Till then the operation of the allotment order dated 5-3-93 shall remain stayed." 4. IT is said that the operation of the stay order dated 8-1-93 had been received by respondent no. 3, i.e. the Superintendent of Police (R), Haldwani, District Nainital on 8-1 -93 itself. In the night between 8/9th January, 1993 by heavy police force possession of the premises in question had been taken and the belongings of the petitioners were thrown away at the instance of respondent no. 3. The petitioners tried to resist the illegal action of the respondent no. 3 and the police force, but of no consequence. The petitioners are said to have sent telegram to the Governor of the State of U. P. on 9-1-93, One F.I.R. was also lodged on 9-1-93 at P. S. Haldwani, District Nainital against the respondents. 5. IT has been stated by the petitioners that the revision filed by them before the District Judge, Nainital was transferred to IV Addl, District Judge, Nainital which is pending. The petitioners submitted that the contesting opposite-party got the delivery of possession illegally and by exercising undue influence and force. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was no justification for taking possession of the accommodation by force in between the night of 8/9th January, 1993. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the building in question since was in the tenancy of the State Government the provisions of U P. Act No. 13 of 1972 did not apply. Learned counsel pointed out the provisions of section 2 (a) of the Act showing that nothing in this Act shall apply to any public building. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the building in question since was in the tenancy of the State Government the provisions of U P. Act No. 13 of 1972 did not apply. Learned counsel pointed out the provisions of section 2 (a) of the Act showing that nothing in this Act shall apply to any public building. IT was also pointed out that public building as defined in Sec. 3 (o) of the Act defines public building as, "public building" means any building belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of the Central Government or a State Government (including the Government of any other State), and includes any building belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of any local authority or any public sector corporation". IT is submitted that the accommodation in question was admittedly in the tenancy of Labour Commissioner, Kumaun Mandal. Haldwani. Thus, the building is a public building within the meaning as given in the Act Since the building was vacated by the State Government, the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 would not be applicable. Further it is submitted that after receiving possession from the Labour Department of the State Government, the petitioners who are the owners and landlords of the building, started using it themselves. No proceedings under section 16 of the Act could have been started in respect of the said building. Unless there was a defacto vacancy, proceedings, for allotment could not be taken in respect of the property in question. 6. THE main thrust of the argument in the present case is that the respondent no. 3 illegally took possession by using force in the night between the night of 8/9th of January, 1993 when stay order had already been passed on 8th of January 1993 in the knowledge of the respondent no. 3. The other relief prayed by the petitioners is about fixing a date for early decision of the revisions pending before the IV Addl. District Judge, Nainital as the respondent no. 3 is interested in delaying so that the tenant may continue the illegal the legal occupation. The procedure prescribed for delivery of possession after allotment was not complied with and the action of the opposite party no. 3 in collusion with the police authorities and high handedness acts the possession was taken. District Judge, Nainital as the respondent no. 3 is interested in delaying so that the tenant may continue the illegal the legal occupation. The procedure prescribed for delivery of possession after allotment was not complied with and the action of the opposite party no. 3 in collusion with the police authorities and high handedness acts the possession was taken. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules framed under the Act. The provision of Rule 14 is quoted as under :- 14. Enforcement of order of allotment or release. (Section 16 (4))-Where any building about to fall vacant is allotted or released under Section 16 (1) Proceedings for putting the allottee or the landlord, as the case may be, in possession shall be taken by the District Magistrate only, after the building has actually fallen vacant or is held by him through an inquiry conducted in that behalf to have fallen vacant, and an order in Form C shall be served upon the person or persons found in unauthorised occupation of the building directing him or them to vacate the same and deliver vacant possession thereof to the person named in the order within such period as may be specified in the order, which shall in no case be less than a week from the date of service of the order upon him, and on his failure to comply with the order within the time allowed, the District Magistrate shall issue an order to the officer-in-charge of the Police Station in Form D directing him to get the building vacated and to put the allottee or the landlord in possession of the building." 7. LEARNED counsel for the petitioners cited Smt, Usha Raha v. State of U. P., 1989 (2) ARC 329. LEARNED counsel for the petitioners placed this case in extenso and submitted that the fact of the present case and the reported decision are exactly similar. The case relied by the learned counsel also has similar facts as in the present writ petition. 8. IT was also submitted that the petitioners' release application was pending and was not finally decided. In the meantime the allotment orders have been passed by the Rent Control Authorities. The writ petition was filed and the Court was placed to call for a counter affidavit from the respondents. The respondent no. 8. IT was also submitted that the petitioners' release application was pending and was not finally decided. In the meantime the allotment orders have been passed by the Rent Control Authorities. The writ petition was filed and the Court was placed to call for a counter affidavit from the respondents. The respondent no. 3 has filed his own affidavit and has prayed for exempting his personal attendance before the Court. Besides this supplementary affidavit has also been filed and rejoinder affidavit by the petitioners has also been filed in the present case. The case was not admitted and parties were directed to exchange their affidavits so that the matter may be finally disposed of. The writ petition is heard finally with the consent of the parties and is being decided finally. 9. IN the counter affidavit the averments of the writ petition have been denied. It has been stated in the counter affidavit and admitted that the premises in question was in tenancy of Deputy Labour Commissioner Kumaun Mandal since, 1984. Since the Labour Commissioner's office had already been constructed, they shifted and vacated the premises. The respondent no. 3 said to have applied for the allotment of the premises in question on 10 6-92 for his office as it was likely to fall vacant. Simultaneously the Regional Food Controller Kumaun also had applied for the allotment of the premises on 4- 7-92. It is said that the petitioner no. 4 Dr. Amrit Lal who was later impleaded as petitioner by order of the court dated 3-9-93, had given consent for allotment of the accommodation in favour of the Regional Food Controller, Kumaun. IN the counter affidavit it has been stated that Dr. Amrit Lal used to realise the rent on behalf of his wife, the original owner of the premises. The vacancy of the accommodation was created on 1-10-92 and the prescribed Authority declared vacancy by order dated 20-11-92. The respondent no. 3 in his counter affidavit attempted to show that Dr. Amrit Lal had consented for allotment of the accommodation. Further it was submitted that the release application was dismissed on 4-1-93 and the allotment order was passed on 5- 1-93 by the prescribed authority in favour of respondent no. 3. The petitioners' both the revisions are pending. The respondent no. 3 in his counter affidavit attempted to show that Dr. Amrit Lal had consented for allotment of the accommodation. Further it was submitted that the release application was dismissed on 4-1-93 and the allotment order was passed on 5- 1-93 by the prescribed authority in favour of respondent no. 3. The petitioners' both the revisions are pending. The respondent no. 3 stated that there are number of properties belonging to the petitioners within the District of Nainital, Dehradun, Ghaziabad, Delhi, Kanpur and Firozabad. I have examined the entire counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3. The main contention of the respondents is that the petitioners have sufficient other properties and Kothis at Bhotia Parao besides several other properties. There is no need or bonafide need for the release in favour of the petitioners. 10. THE entire perusal of the counter affidavit do not show that in the revision filed by the petitioners the District Judge had passed stay orders quoted in the earlier part of this judgment. It is said that the respondent no. 3 had information and knowledge of the stay order passed on 8-4-93. Inspite of the said knowledge possession was taken by force through employees of the police force and that too in between the night of 8th and 9th of January, 1993 possession was forcefully taken. There is no reasonable and believable reply to the said conduct of respondent no. 3 for taking possession of the accommodation in question. It cannot be denied that the petitioners- landlords had entered into possession of the accommodation in question after it was vacated by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, the out-going tenant. There is no reasonable and believable reply to the said conduct of respondent no. 3 for taking possession of the accommodation in question. It cannot be denied that the petitioners- landlords had entered into possession of the accommodation in question after it was vacated by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, the out-going tenant. Rule 14 of the Rules speaks, possession shall be taken by the District Magistrate only after the building has actually fallen vacant or is held by him through an inquiry conducted in that behalf to have fallen vacant and an order in From-C shall be served upon the person or persons found in unauthorised occupation of the building directing him or them to vacate the same and deliver vacant possession thereof to the person named in the order within such period as may be specified in the order which shall in no case be less than a week from the date of service of the order upon him and on his failure to comply with the order within the time allowed, the District Magistrate shall issue an order to the officer-in-charge, Police Station in Form D directing to him to get the building vacated and put the allottee or the landlord in possession of the building". In paragraph No. 14 of the counter affidavit of respondent no. 3 it has been said that an order in Form B was issued in pursuance of the allotment order requiring the landlord Dr. Amrit Lal to let out the building in dispute and deliver possession to the allottee respondent no. 3 by 13-3-93. THE respondent no. 3 stated that in fact possession of the disputed premises was obtained and occupied on 6-1-93 peacefully in the presence of the witnesses It was stated that premises was lying vacant, unoccupied and totally open, It has been stated that possession was taken on 6-1-93 and affidavit of Sri C. B. Singh and Gyan Deo Bhatt dated 25-8-93 have been annexed with the affidavit. Sri Nand Vallabh Tewari, Standing counsel for the State place reliance on number of decisions, namely, 1984 (2) ARC, (Surgical Clinic and Nursing Home, Civil Lines, Kanpur v. District Judge, Kanpur). He place reliance on paragraph 27. It was pointed out that the allotment order is not the order issued in Form B after the actual allotment order passed by the District Magistrate or his delegaty. He place reliance on paragraph 27. It was pointed out that the allotment order is not the order issued in Form B after the actual allotment order passed by the District Magistrate or his delegaty. The act of issuing Form B is a ministerial act issuing formal order of allotment in Form B. This decision was based on another decision M/s Supreme Pharmacy v. II Addl. District Judge, Kanpur, 1982 (2) ARC 578. Similar view was expressed in 1983 ALJ 173. 11. SRI Tewari also place reliance on Babulal v. Sheonath Das, 1967 ALJ 236 This was a case under the U. P. Temporary Rent Control and Eviction Act of 1947 and it was held that the R. C. E. O. of the District Magistrate can pass order in respect of an accommodation which is or has fallen vacant or is about to fall vacant. The accommodation must either be vacant or about to fall vacant before he can pass the order under section 7(2). The learned Standing Counsel relied on another case Peer Bux v. Karam Chand, 1963 ALJ 725 and submitted that an allotment order by itself does not confer any tenancy which is created only when the landlord in pursuance of the allotment order admits the nominee of the District Magistrate to the tenancy. The learned standing counsel placed this case without fully appreciating the facts of the case where it was said that in pursuance of the allotment order possession taken by the tenant shall fall with a subsequent order of cancellation of the allotment. This authority in no way helps the respondents. The last case cited by SRI Tewari is H. K. Wattal v. M. G. and S. works, 1963 ALT 1068. This case decises that an allottee taking peaceful possession under a valid allotment order is not a trespasser. This authority is also not not relevant and necessary for the present case. 12. THIS Court is concerned specially to decide a question whether respondent no. 3 with the aid of police force was legally justified in taking forceful possession between the night of 8th and 9th of January, 1993 when the Incharge District Judge had already stayed the operation of the allotment order dated 5-1-1993. The fact that the building in question was a public building in tenancy of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, who vacated and delivered possession to his landlords on 22-11-92. The fact that the building in question was a public building in tenancy of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, who vacated and delivered possession to his landlords on 22-11-92. The application for release was filed by the landlords for their personal use and occupation. The respondent no 3 pleaded in the counter affidavit that the building in question was lying vacant and peaceful possession was taken on 6th of January, 1993 itself. There was none to resist or protest the taking over possession by the respondent no. 3 and his subordinate staff. The respondent no. 3 who is none else than the Superintendent of Police, Haldwani appears to have not waited for due delivery of possession according to the possession of Rule 14 of the Rules framed under the Act. It appears that soon after the knowledge of stay order dated 8-1 -1993 passed by the Incharge-District Judge, opposite party no. 3 in between the night of 8/9th January, 1993 forcibly entered into possession of the accommodation and threw out the properties of the landlords from the accommodation in question. The decisions relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner 1989 (2) ARC 329, applies to the facts of the present case squarely. The respondents took possession of the premises in question without any notice issued in Form C. The allegation in the counter affidavit that the premises in question was lying vacant and there were no occupant therein is not believable at all. Provisions of Rule 14 are mandatory. Without following the provisions of Rule 14 the possession was taken illegally. In other words also possession was taken by the respondents after the stay order was passed by the Incharge District Judge on 8-1-1993. Now the version given in the counter affidavit that possession was taken on 6th of January, 1993 peacefully is after thought concoction of the respondents. Annexures CA-6 filed with the counter affidavit shows that the Superintendent of Police (R), Haldwani by D.O. dated 6th January, 1993 which is a typed photostat copy of the original reads that the building at Bhotia Parao is at present vacant and has been allotted by the prescribed authority Rent Control, Haldwani in favour of the Superintendent Police (R). It was directed in the letter that the building which is vacant be made available to the department forthwith. Necessary action be immediately taken. It was directed in the letter that the building which is vacant be made available to the department forthwith. Necessary action be immediately taken. THIS was sent to the Station House Officer who also made endorsement for necessary action and report. The report on the back and on the back of the version of this document shows that at about 10 O' clock on 6-1-93 the goods from the old office building have been put in the allotted building. There was nothing in the building and it was found open. 1 his document itself is doubtful and not believable. The respondents have not filed any report of the G D. of the Police Station about the action taken by the police of the police station. THIS papers, thus, cannot be accepted to be correct and reliable. The affidavits filed by Sri Iftekhar Husain, S.I., Chandra Pal Singh Assistant Sub-Inquiry Officer and Gyandeo filed before the High Court dated 25-8-93 are all attempts to cover the high handed action of respondent no. 3 in taking possession of the premises by force without complying the provisions of Rule 14 and flouting the stay order passed by the Incharge District Judge in revision staying the operation of the allotment order. No person can be permitted to take law in their own hands. The police specially the Superintendent of Police (R) who is supposed to be a responsible high police official was not expected to proceed in the manner as had been done in the present case. No person can be permitted to flout the orders of the court and act with muscle power against the citizen. The police is the protector of the citizen and high police official when defy the orders of the court and take forceful possession cannot be permitted to continue in accupation of the accommodation till the revisions no. 1 and 2 of 1993 filed 6y the petitioners are not finally decided by respondent no. 1. After examining the facts and circumstances of the case I am fully satisfied that respondent no. 3 had taken illegal possession of the accommodation in question by force between the night of 8/9th January. 1993 ignoring the stay order passed by the Incharge District Judge dated 8-1-1993 and also without following procedure prescribed under Rule 14 of the Act. 1. After examining the facts and circumstances of the case I am fully satisfied that respondent no. 3 had taken illegal possession of the accommodation in question by force between the night of 8/9th January. 1993 ignoring the stay order passed by the Incharge District Judge dated 8-1-1993 and also without following procedure prescribed under Rule 14 of the Act. I do not feel hesitant in exercising the enquiry jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in undoing the wrong of taking illegal passion by force voilating the provisions of Rule 14 and stay order of the Court. 1 thus, feel that before the revision nos. 1 and 2 of 1993, pending before the respondent no. 1 is decided, the possession illegally taken by respondent no. 3 be restored back to the petitioners within one month from the date of filing a certified copy of this order before respondent no. 1. After the possession is restored back to the petitioners, the respondent no. 1 is directed to finally decide the revision nos. 1 and 2 of 993 according to law at an early date. The writ petition is allowed with costs. Petition allowed.