Judgment : SUDHIR Narain, J. 1. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 18-10-1994, whereby the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, respondent No. 4 allotted the accommodation in favour of respondent No. 5 and a writ or mandamus commanding the respondents to restore the possession of the disputed accommodation to the petitioner. 2. BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the petitioner is landlady of the house situate in Civil Lines, Azamgarh City. Respondent No. 5 claiming himself a President of the Samajwadi Party, Azamgarh, sent a letter to the Chief Minister requesting him that the house of the petitioner in which office of-District Supply Officer is running may be shifted to D. C. F. Department and the house of the petitioner may be allotted for the purpose of office of Samjajwadi Party at Azamgarh. On this letter the District Magistrate, Azamgarh also made a report on 24-2-1994. The letter on behalf of the Chief Minister was issued to the Deputy Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh and the District Magistrate, Azamgarh for transfer of the office of District Supply Officer to old Panchayat Bhawan. The petitioner on coming to know that the accommodation is going to be vacated, moved an application for release of the disputed house on 21-9-1994. On 10-10-1994 respondent No. 5 filed an application for allotment of the disputed house for the purpose of office of Samajwadi Party. Azamgarh. On 12th October, 1994 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer issued a notice indicating that the house in question was likely to fall vacant and the persons desiring for allotment/release can file application. The applications will be considered on 18-10- 1994. On 18-10-1994 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an allotment order in favour of respondent No. 5 and on the same day the possession of the house in question was taken by him. The petitioner has challenged this order in the present writ petition. 3. THIS Court issued the following interim mandamus on 1-11-1994 : "issue interim mandamus to the respondents to deliver back the possession or 10 show cause within a period of three weeks as to why the same may not be done. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 no counter affidavit has been filed. On behalf of respondent No. 5 a counter affidavit has been filed by Sri Ram Adhar Singh Yadav. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 no counter affidavit has been filed. On behalf of respondent No. 5 a counter affidavit has been filed by Sri Ram Adhar Singh Yadav. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that the notice was given to the petitioner before the allotment order was passed and her release application was rejected. She had full knowledge of the proceedings as she herself filed an application dated 15-10-1994 in which she had stated that she had come to know that house in question was likely to fall vacant. She was not required to be given any further opportunity or notice. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the vacancy was alleged to have been notified on 12th October, 1994. The petitioner was not given any notice of the order of declaration of vacancy nor she was intimated about the date of hearing of the application for release or the allotment. The vacancy was notified on 12-10-1994 and on 18-10-1994 the allotment order was passed. 5. LEARNED counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner had knowledge of the vacancy and she had herself filed an application for release on 21-9-1994. She had further filed an application on 15- 10-1994 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer intimating him that she had already filed application for release of the accommodation in question. The respondents have not filed any copy of the order passed on the application for release. There is further nothing to show that the petitioner was given any notice of the date of hearing on the application for release or the allotment. The petitioner filed application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 15-10-1994 praying that she may be given information relating to the order of vacancy and her release application may be considered after giving opportunity of hearing. It is clear from this application that till 15th October, 1994 she was not given any notice of the order declaring vacancy dated 12- 10-1994, No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 indicating that the petitioner was given any notice of the date fixed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. 6. It is clear from this application that till 15th October, 1994 she was not given any notice of the order declaring vacancy dated 12- 10-1994, No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 indicating that the petitioner was given any notice of the date fixed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. 6. IT is further to be noted that even if the release application is rejected the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was bound to give notice of date of hearing of the allotment application to the landlord under Rule 9 (3) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972. In Dr. Smt. Keshav Devi v. Girdhari Lal Pahwa, 1987 (1) ARC 6, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that even if an application for release filed by the landlord is rejected, he is entitled to receive a notice intimating the date fixed for considering the allotment applications of the premises which may have fallen vacant or is likely to fall vacant. In the present case there is nothing to show that the petitioner was intimated about the date of hearing of the application for release of the disputed accommodation filed by her. The application remained undisposed of. The allotment order was passed hurriedly in favour of respondent No. 5 within four days from the date of declaration of the vacancy. Respondent No. 5 also obtained possession on the same days in complete violation of Rule 14 of the Rules framed under the Act. The entire procedure adopted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was in total disregard of the provisions of the Act. The petitioner has further averred that respondent No. 5 was already allotted an accommodation for its office purpose on 10th August, 1994. It is not denied by respondent No. 5. 7. LEARNED counsel for the respondent contended that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioners has alternative remedy by filing a revision under Section 18 of the Act before the District Judge. The petitioner has admittedly taken the possession of the accommodation in dispute on the same date in complete flagrant violation of Rule 14 of the Rules framed under the Act. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer in total disregard of the provisions of the Act allotted the accommodation to respondent No. 5. The petitioner has admittedly taken the possession of the accommodation in dispute on the same date in complete flagrant violation of Rule 14 of the Rules framed under the Act. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer in total disregard of the provisions of the Act allotted the accommodation to respondent No. 5. If an allotment order is passed in total disregard of the provisions of the Act and the possession is taken in illegal way in violation of Rule 14, that amounts to house grabbing as held in Mohan Lal Mehra v. State of U. P, 1995 (1) ARC 553 and it was further held that in such circumstances the alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the writ petition. In the present case possession has been taken by respondent No. 5 in flagrant violation of Rule 14 under the allotment order which is manifestly illegal. In such circumstances, the alternative remedy is not a bar for seeking remedy by the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. IN view of the facts of the present case the writ petition is allowed and order dated 18-10-1994, Annexure-4 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed and the respondent No. 1 is directed to restore the possession of the disputed house to the petitioner within one week from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Petition allowed.