Judgment By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 21.12.1991 passed by II Add!. District Judge, Nainitcil in Rent Control Revision No. 1 of 1989. The said revision was filed against the judgment and order dated 28.12.1988 passed by the Prescribed Authority/.D.M. Haldwani on the application of the petitioner moved under Section 16 (1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. During pendency of the writ petition Smt. Mano Devi WIO Bhagwati Prasad died and her legal heir were substituted in her place. 2. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the order impugned. 3. The R.ent Control and Eviction Officer after finding that Sri Hari Mohan Tandon and Radhey Mohan Tandon are unauthorized occupants, proceeded under Section 16 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for allotment of the accommodation in question or release in favour of the landlord, as an application for release was moved before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. 4. The Rent Control and Eviction officer declared vacancy under Section 12 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 holding Sri Radhey Mohan Tandon and Sri Hari Mohan Tandon to be unauthorised Occupant. In view of the vacancy, application for allotment was moved by Hari Mohan Tandon. The release application was also filed by the landlord under Section 16 (1)(b). The Rent Control & Eviction Officer considered both these applications and released the northern portion of the accommodation in favour of the landlord and allotted the southern portion of the accommodation of Hari Mohan Tandon. Feeling aggrieved by this, the landlord filed revision. The Revisional Court also confirmed the order passed by the trial Court. 5. The main ground under challenged in this writ petition is that the southern portion of the accommodation which was allotted to Hari Mohan Tandon could not be allotted, as they were unauthorized occupants. Rule 10(S)(d) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 reads as under:- "10(5) A building shall not ordinarily be allotted to the following persons or for the following purpose:- (a) . (b) . (c) . (d) For accommodating a person who has entered into unauthorised occupation of the building or any part thereof without the written consent of the landlord" 6. (b) . (c) . (d) For accommodating a person who has entered into unauthorised occupation of the building or any part thereof without the written consent of the landlord" 6. Use of the word 'ordinarily' shall not be meant for the allotment as it is made for exceptional cases after recording the reasons showing greater hardship of the unauthorized occupants. I have perused the judgments passed by the courts below. I find that no such reasons for allotment have been recorded in the order impugned, therefore, the allotment in favour of Hari Mohan Tandon is bad in law and is hereby set-aside. The accommodation in question is released in favour of the landlord. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.