(1) LEAVE granted. (2) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High court. The matter arises under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The premises in question, namely. House No. 88/451, Humayun Bagh, Chamanganj, Kanpur Nagar belonging to Respondent 4 fell vacant. As required under Section 17 of the Act, the landlord sent an intimation within 21 days. Allotting authority, namely, the District Magistrate did not allot to anybody. Consequently the landlord, as provided in the same provision, again sent a nomination nominating the first respondent herein on 29/10/1988. But strangely the allotting authority did not allot the premises to the first respondent but kept the matter simply pending. In the meanwhile on 25/8/1989 the first respondent was put in half portion of the premises by the landlord himself. Even by then no allotment order was made by the authority. The landlord however again on 8/4/1991 sent an application to the District Magistrate withdrawing the nomination in favour of Respondent 1. Thereafter on 10/5/1992 the appellant submitted her application to the District Magistrate for allotment of the premises in dispute in her favour, The District Magistrate however accepted that application and allotted the premises in favour of the appellant on 20/7/1991. Questioning the same, Respondent 1 filed a writ petition before the High court and the same was allowed by the impugned order. (3) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that there is no proper allotment order in favour of Respondent 1 and as such the High court erred in quashing the allotment order in favour of the appellant when Respondent 1 herself was in illegal possession. We see no force in this submission. Under Section 17 of the Act whenever the vacancy arises and the authority may allot the same and communicate the allotment order within 21 days to the landlord from the date of the receipt of intimation of the vacancy and where no such communication is made to the landlord, the landlord may intimate to the District Magistrate the name of the person of his choice and thereupon the District Magistrate shall allot the same 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. It may be mentioned at this stage that the allotment in favour of the appellant which was made on 20/7/1991 is not within this period stipulated under this provision. Section 17 categorically lays down that if no allotment is made and no communication is sent within 21 days as provided thereunder, the landlord is at liberty to nominate a person of his own choice. Under the provision the District Magistrate shall allot and there is no other option unless for special and adequate reason to be recorded he allots to any other person. The allotment in favour of the appellant does not in any manner come within the purview of this section. Hence, the High court was right in holding that the allotment in favour of the appellant was not legal. The High court has further directed Respondent 2, namely, the allotting authority to decide the application for allotment of the 1st respondent on the basis of the nomination given by the landlord in her favour. We do not see anything wrong in this direction also. In the result the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.