JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—The first Writ Petition No. 25024 of 2008 has been filed by the tenant-allottee Surendra Yadav. In that writ petition landlord-respondent Ram Naresh Lal had filed caveat through Sri R.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel. When the case was taken up as fresh, Sri A.K. Gupta learned Counsel for Ram Naresh Lal, the landlord-petitioner in the second writ petition pointed out that the said writ petition was also connected with the first writ petition, accordingly both the writ petitions were heard together. 2. In the first writ petition petitioner, allottee tenant, Surendra Yadav has described himself as Ex-Member of Parliament, Khalilabad. 3. The writ petitions arise out of allotment proceeding. House in dispute was allotted to Surendra Yadav in 1997 and he immediately took possession thereof. On pointed enquiry by the Court from the learned Counsel for him regarding payment of rent, it was categorically stated that till date no rent had been paid. However, learned Counsel stated that allottee-tenant Surendra Yadav was ready to pay the rent. There is a world of difference between actual payment and readiness to pay. 4. Allotment application was filed on 10.1.1997 and on the same date report was called for from Rent Control Inspector, who submitted the report on 27.1.1997. Inspection was made without any notice to the landlord, contrary to the mandatory requirement of Rule 8(2) of the Rules framed under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. Thereafter Rent Control and Eviction Officer through order dated 19.5.1997 allotted the house in dispute to Surendra Yadav. At the time of allotment, Sri Surendra Yadav was sitting M.P. In the allotment order, there is no mention regarding any notice at any stage to the landlord. In the allotment order absolutely no rent was fixed. Number of the allottted house is 572 and it is situate in Ward No. 5 Mohalla Indira Nagar, Basti. Landlord in writ petition (para 33) has stated that house in dispute is spread over an area of 3000 sq. yard and is situate in the main market of Basti and contains four rooms, two verandas, latrine, bathroom and kitchen open Court yard and a lawn and can easily be let out on monthly rent of Rs. 6,000/-. After allotment, procedure is prescribed under the Act and the Rules for taking possession. yard and is situate in the main market of Basti and contains four rooms, two verandas, latrine, bathroom and kitchen open Court yard and a lawn and can easily be let out on monthly rent of Rs. 6,000/-. After allotment, procedure is prescribed under the Act and the Rules for taking possession. However the allottee took possession within 3 days i.e. on 22.5.1997 by himself and gave an intimation to that effect on 23.5.1997. In that intimation it was mentioned that in pursuance of allotment order, the allottee Surendra Yadav started residing in the house since 22.5.1997. The version of the landlord that the possession of the house was forcibly taken stands proved by the said letter. Landlord’s allegation is that locks were also broken open while taking possession. Thereafter landlord filed revision against the allotment order (Revision No. 157 of 2001). District Judge, Basti through order dated 4.2.2002 allowed the revision and remanded the matter to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Thereafter petitioner filed objection before Rent Control and Eviction Officer and also filed application for restoration of the possession on 12.8.2005. Thereafter fresh report was called for from Rent Control Inspector, who on 5.10.2005 reported that house was in possession of Surendra Yadav. Rent Control and Eviction Officer through order dated 30.09.2006 dismissed the application of the landlord for possession. Thereafter release application was filed by the landlord. It was also stated that landlord was employed at Gorakhpur and had taken a house at the rent of Rs. 2200/- per month. Rent Control and Eviction Officer through order dated 27.1.2008 released the accommodation in favour of the landlord. Against the said order allottee tenant filed revision No. 10 of 2008. Revision filed by the allottee tenant against the release order (Civil Revision No. 10 of 2008) has been dismissed on 19.4.2008 by District Judge Basti which order has been challenged through first writ petition by Surendra Yadav allottee-tenant. 5. The allotment order was utterly illegal and without jurisdiction as none of the following mandatory notices were issued to the landlord, (i) Before inspection (Rule 8(2) of the Rules) (ii) Before declaration of vacancy (vide Ganpat Roy v. ADM, AIR 1985 SC 1635 : 1985 (2) ARC 73. (iii) After declaration of vacancy and before allotment (Rule 9(3) of the Rules). 6. (iii) After declaration of vacancy and before allotment (Rule 9(3) of the Rules). 6. I have discussed all these aspects in detail in R.L. Paddar v. ADJ, 2003 (2) ARC 629; C.K. Nagarkar v. ADJ, 2004 (2) ARC 349 and K.L. Yadav v. ADJ, 2004 (2) ARC 789. 7. In fact no order for declaration of vacancy was passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The report of R.C.I. did not disclose vacancy. It only stated that at the time of inspection house was locked. If house is found locked, it does not mean that it is vacant. Occupant may have temporarily gone out after locking the house. Moreover in the aforesaid authorities I have also held that allotment order is without jurisdiction if no rent is fixed therein. By virtue of definition of lease given under Section 105, Transfer of Property Act there cannot be any tenancy/lease without rent. Moreover under Section 16 (9) of the U.P. Rent Control Act it is mandatory for Rent Control and Eviction Officer to direct the tenant to pay presumptive rent. 8. From the above facts it is more than clear that Surendra Yadav obtained allotment order by virtue of his being sitting M.P. Public figures are supposed to act in more reasonable manner than ordinary citizens. People tend to follow the things done by their rulers. 9. In the above scenario, para 17 of a recent authority of Supreme Court reported in R.K. Shukla v. S.N. Anand, 2008 (2) ARC 613 requires to be quoted and is quoted below : “17. There is another aspect of this matter for which in the facts and circumstances of the case we would not exercise our discretionary power under Article 136 of the Constitution. The vacancy declaration order and the consequent allotment in favour of the appellant was made in the manner indicated herein earlier and the appellant stormed into the disputed premises more than two decades back and started enjoying the same without paying a single penny in respect of the same. It was only after the judgment of the High Court that he had deposited the amount as directed by the High Court. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court under Article 136 of the Constitution in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 10. It was only after the judgment of the High Court that he had deposited the amount as directed by the High Court. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court under Article 136 of the Constitution in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 10. The prayer in the writ petition by the landlord is for quashing the admission order passed by the Revisional Court. However, thereafter the Revisional Court has dismissed the revision. The second prayer in the landlord’s writ petition is for a writ of mandamus commanding the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Sadar, Basti to restore possession. Third prayer is for a direction to allottee to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month from the date of possession i.e. 22.5.1997. 11. I do not find least error in the judgment and order of the Revisional Court dated 19.4.2008 and release order dated 7.1.2008. The need of the landlord has rightly been found to be bonafide as he has got no other house. Moreover as held in 1986 (1) ARC 1 (FB), Talib Hasan v. ADJ, and R.N. Sharma v. S. Gaur, AIR 2002 SC 2204 , allottee cannot question the need of landlord in proceedings under Section 16 of the Act. Accordingly, first writ petition filed by allottee Surendra Yadav is dismissed. Second Writ Petition by the landlord Ram Naresh Lal is allowed in part. 12. Allottee Sri Surendra Yadav is granted one months’ time to vacate, failing which, District Magistrate, Basti shall positively restore the possession of the house in dispute to the landlord by 31.8.2008. In the process of delivery of possession, Rent Control and Eviction Officer shall not be involved in any manner. Copy of this judgment shall immediately be sent to District Magistrate. It may be sent through fax also. Any laxity or latitude on the part of the District Magistrate in this regard will not at all be appreciated by this Court. District Magistrate must realise that his delegatee i.e. Rent Control and Eviction Officer has already crossed all the limits. It may be appropriate for the District Magistrate to take action/recommend to take action on the administrative side against the erring Rent Control and Eviction Officer, who made the allotment in most illegal manner. District Magistrate must realise that his delegatee i.e. Rent Control and Eviction Officer has already crossed all the limits. It may be appropriate for the District Magistrate to take action/recommend to take action on the administrative side against the erring Rent Control and Eviction Officer, who made the allotment in most illegal manner. Rent Control and Eviction Officer played the role of willing tool in the hands of the sitting M.P. It was a case of utter misuse of power by sitting M.P. and abject surrender to his whims on the part of Rent Control and Eviction Officer. 13. Allottee Surendra Yadav is directed to pay damages to the landlord for use and occupation of the accommodation in dispute since 22.5.1997 till the date of actual vacation at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month. This amount shall be recovered from him by the District Magistrate like arrears of land revenue within three months and handed over to the landlord Ram Naresh Lal. In this regard also the Court hopes that the District Magistrate will not provide the opportunity to the landlord to file an application in this writ petition complaining non-compliance of this direction. 14. As misuse of power and abuse of process of law was extraordinary in the allotment hence extraordinary directions for redressal have been issued. 15. Office is directed to supply a copy of this judgment to learned Chief Standing Counsel free of cost within three days. ————