JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners in both the writ petitions are allottee tenants of two different portions of House No. 26/55, Virhana Road, Kanpur. The portions in dispute in both the writ petitions consist of two rooms on first floor each. In the property in dispute in the first writ petition, previously one Sanad Kumar was the tenant and in the property in dispute in the second writ petition Sri Pyarey Lal @ Hira Lal was the tenant. Both the petitioners alleged that the previous tenants intended to vacate the tenanted accommodations in their possession and on coming to know of the said intention, petitioners filed allotment applications on 22.4.1982 in the first case and on 24.5.1982 in the second case. According to Para-4 of both the writ petitions on the allotment applications of the petitioners, R.C. & E.O. concerned called for reports from the Rent Control Inspector (R.C.I.), who submitted the report on 4.5.1982 in the first case and on 5.6.1982 in the second case. The reports are Annexure-1 to the writ petitions. In the reports, it was mentioned that the previous tenants gave written statements to the R.C.I., that they were tenants @ Rs. 66.40 per month and Rs. 72 per month respectively and they intended to leave the tenanted accommodations very shortly. It is absolutely clear from both the reports that absolutely no notice was given to the landlord by R.C.I., before inspection. In both the reports, it was mentioned that outgoing tenants informed the Inspector that Sri Kamlapat Kanodia was the landlord (respondent No. 2 in both the writ petitions). According to Para-5 of both the writ petitions, R.C. & E.O. on 4.5.1982 and 5.6.1982 respectively passed the orders notifying the vacancies and directing that the parties be intimated. According to Para-6 of both the writ petitions, vacancy was notified alongwith other premises on 6.5.1982 and 11.6.1982 respectively. According to Para-7 of both the writ petitions, notice of vacancy was also served upon the landlord respondent No. 2 but he refused to accept the same on 8.5.1982 and 7.6.1982 and thereafter, it was affixed on his house. Annexure-4 to each writ petition is copy of report of process server. 3. In both the cases, petitioners were the only applicants, hence buildings were allotted to them. Annexure-4 to each writ petition is copy of report of process server. 3. In both the cases, petitioners were the only applicants, hence buildings were allotted to them. In the first case, allotment order was passed on 13.5.1982 and in the other case on 30.6.1982. Annexure-5 to each writ petition is the allotment order. In the allotment order, there, is absolutely no mention that notice was served upon the landlord. The entire order is that from the perusal of the record, it is evident that there is only one applicant, no objection/affidavit has been filed, hence building is allotted to the solitary applicant. In the first case, allotment order was passed in Case No. 2960 of 1982 and in the other case, in case No. 324 of 1982 by R.C. & E.O./Additional City Magistrate (V), Kanpur. Annexure-6 to each writ petition is the proforma of allotment order. In the allotment order, it was clearly mentioned that landlord Sri Kamlapat Kanodia after vacation of the house from the previous tenant should let out the house to the allottee. In none of the allotment orders, any rent was fixed. Annexure-7 to the writ petition is certificate of the petitioner filed before R.C. & E.O. on 17.5.2008 to the effect that Sanad Kumar the previous tenant had given possession to him on 15.5.1982. As far as second writ petition is concerned, In Para-12 of the same, it has been stated as follows : “that the petitioner took possession of premises on 1.7.1982 from Sri Pyarey Lal @ Hira Lal the erstwhile tenant.” 4. Thereafter, landlord respondent No. 2 filed revisions against allotment orders. In the first case, revision was numbered as Rent Revision No. 150 of 1982 and in the other case as Rent Revision No. 230 of 1982. Vth A.D.J., Kanpur through judgments and orders dated 24.9.1983 allowed both the revisions, set aside the orders passed by R.C. & E.O. and remanded the matter back for re-deciding the question of vacancy and allotment of the premises in dispute after compliance of Rule-8 of the Rules framed under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972. Both the judgments are similar but separate. The said judgments and orders of the Revisional Court have been challenged by the allottees/tenants through these writ petitions. 5. Both the judgments are similar but separate. The said judgments and orders of the Revisional Court have been challenged by the allottees/tenants through these writ petitions. 5. The above narration of facts leaves no room of doubt that it was clearly a case of house grabbing with full support of R.C. & E.O. 6. R.C.I. before making inspection was not even aware as to who was the landlord. Under Rule 8(2) of the Rules framed under the Act, it was utmost essential to issue notice to the landlord before inspection. However, issuance of notice would have upset the apple cart of the petitioners, outgoing tenants and R.C. & E.O. All the three were hand-in-glove with in each other for grabbing and absorbing the house in dispute. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that notice to landlord, at three stages, is utmost essential. One is before inspection, the other is before declaring vacancy and the third is after declaration of vacancy and before allotment. In the instant case, according to the own case, no notice was issued either before inspection or before declaring likely vacancy. Petitioners allege that third notice, i.e. after declaring vacancy and before allotment notice was issued to the landlord but there is no finding of service in the impugned orders. Supreme Court in Ganpat Roy v. A.D.M., 1985 (2) ARC 73, has held that vacancy cannot be declared without hearing the landlord. In the instant case, absolutely no effort was made to intimate the landlord. Likely vacancy was notified in the routine manner. How the petitioners came to know about the intentions of previous tenants to vacate has not been disclosed anywhere. Why the tenants kept their intention to vacate secret from the landlord is still a mystery. It has not been divulged even in the writ petitions. In any case, outgoing tenant and prospective tenant cannot exchange possession without interception of the landlord. First the outgoing tenant must deliver possession to the landlord thereafter landlord may be asked to redeliver possession to the allottee/tenant. Under general law of lease as provided under Chapter-V of Transfer of Property Act tenant at the time of leaving the tenanted property is required to deliver its possession to the landlord. First the outgoing tenant must deliver possession to the landlord thereafter landlord may be asked to redeliver possession to the allottee/tenant. Under general law of lease as provided under Chapter-V of Transfer of Property Act tenant at the time of leaving the tenanted property is required to deliver its possession to the landlord. This principle is also recognized under Rule 14 of the Rules framed under the Act, which is quoted below : “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 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 authorised 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 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. Moreover in the instant case even R.C. & E.O. had directed that landlord must deliver possession to the allottees as is evident from proforma allotment order Annexure-6 to each writ petition). However, in both the writ petitions, tenants have boldly asserted that they directly took possession from the outgoing tenants. R.C. & E.O. did not fix any rent in the allotment order. It was clearly a gift of someone property to the petitioners by R.C. & E.O. By virtue of definition of lease as provided under Section 105 of T.P. Act, there cannot be any lease without rent. Under Section 16(9) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972, it is utmost essential that in the allotment order rent must be fixed. 8. Under Section 16(9) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972, it is utmost essential that in the allotment order rent must be fixed. 8. I have discussed the points involved in these writ petitions in following judgments : (1) “Kusum Lata Yadav (Smt.) v. A.D.J., 2004 (2) ARC 789. (2) R.L. Poddar v. A.D.J., 2003 (2) ARC 629. (3) C.K. Nagarkar v. A.D.J., 2004 (2) ARC 349 9. Para 9 of Kusum Lata Yadav’s (supra) authority is quoted below : “In the two cases decided by me reported in R.L Poddar v. ADJ, 2003(2) ARC 629 and C.K. Nagarkar v. ADJ, 2004 (2) ARC 349 almost similar position was there. After placing reliance upon several Supreme Court authorities (including Yogendra Tewari v. D.J., AIR 1984 SC 1149 ; 1984 (2) ARC 7 and Ganpat Roy v. A.D.M., AIR 1985 SC 1635 : 1985 (2) ARC 73) I have held that in any of the following contingencies allotment order is bad in law and without jurisdiction : (i) Inspection is made by R.C.I., without notice to landlord in violation of Rule-8. (ii) No notice is issued to the landlord before declaring vacancy. (iii) No notice is issued to the landlord after declaring vacancy and before allotment. (iv) Allottee takes possession from the previous tenant.” 10. In fact sub-tenancy, which is prohibited by the Act, came into, existence through the help and orders of R.C. & E.O., who is a creature of the Act itself. Obviously there was some deal and understanding between the petitioners and the outgoing tenants. 11. Before parting, it is necessary to notice that in both the writ petitions, Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J., on 23.11.2007, passed the following orders : “The allotment order made on 13.5.1982 was set aside by the Revisional Court on the ground that Rule 8(1) of the rules made under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 was not followed namely that the landlord was not informed before declaration of vacancy and no opportunity was given to him. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner to whom the premises were allotted that he was paying Rs. 750/- to the previous landlord. On 24.9.2007 Shri Jinesh Kumar Shah, the purchaser, who had purchased the premises from the previous landlord on 6.11.2004 was impleaded by the Court. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner to whom the premises were allotted that he was paying Rs. 750/- to the previous landlord. On 24.9.2007 Shri Jinesh Kumar Shah, the purchaser, who had purchased the premises from the previous landlord on 6.11.2004 was impleaded by the Court. Shri Anurag Asthana appearing for newly impleaded landlord states that he has accepted Rs. 1150/- from the tenant per month. He, however, states that this amount is not accepted as rent but for damages for use and occupation. This fact is disputed as the petitioner has raised the plea of estoppel after he was accepted as tenant by Shri Jinesh Kumar Shah w.e.f. 1.5.2006. It appears that the acceptance of the amount of Rs. 1150/- per month by the newly impleaded owner and landlord, prima facie establishes that he does not need the premises for his own use and occupation. The premises, however, are situate in prime commercial locality at Kanpur. Upon hearing the parties, I am prima facie satisfied that the matter can be settled by judicial settlement. The parties are allowed time upto Tuesday to get instructions with regard to amount of rent on which the new owner may accept the petitioner as tenant and the terms and conditions on which such tenancy may be accepted by him. Put up on Tuesday.” 12. Thereafter, on 8.7.2008 when arguments were heard, I passed the following order : “Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for both the parties state that compromise is not possible as suggested by an Hon’ble Judge of this Court through order dated 23.11.2007 for the reason that the new landlord wants possession to the accommodation in dispute immediately after “‘three years, for which tenants petitioners are not agreeable. Accordingly, argument of learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Counsel for the new landlord have been heard on merit. Judgment reserved.” 13. I have held above that the entire proceedings culminating in allotment orders and exchange of possession in between previous tenants and the petitioners were a result of fraud and utterly without jurisdiction. The question of need of subsequent purchaser/landlord will arise only at the stage of release application, which may be filed by him under Section 16 of the Act. In fact, till now landlords have not been able to file release application. The question of need of subsequent purchaser/landlord will arise only at the stage of release application, which may be filed by him under Section 16 of the Act. In fact, till now landlords have not been able to file release application. If tenant leaves tenanted accommodation, then possession has to be delivered by him to the landlord. Of course, it is necessary for the landlord to get property released after it has been vacated by the tenant under Section 16 of the Act otherwise it may be allotted to some third person. However it does not mean that until order of release is passed, property is to be left uncared for. After vacation of a building by his tenant and until release/allotment order is passed, a landlord is fully authorized to remain in possession and use the same in any manner he likes. In fact it is only and only a landlord, who can remain in possession and utilize the same after it has been vacated by the tenant unless it is validly allotted to another person. 14. Accordingly, both the writ petitions being utterly devoid of merit are dismissed. 15. It is further directed that petitioners shall positively deliver possession within two months to the landlords respondents failing which District Magistrate shall deliver possession of the property in dispute to the landlords respondents. In this process, no sub-ordinate officer shall be involved. The possession shall positively be delivered within two weeks since after two months and on filing of application to that effect by landlords respondents. It is hope that District Magistrate Kanpur Nagar will not provide any opportunity to the landlord to complain about delay in the delivery of possession. 16. This is also in accordance with Section 18(3) of the Act, which is quoted below : “18(3) Where an order under Section 16 or Section 19 is rescinded, the District Magistrate shall, on an application being made to him on that behalf, place the parties back in the position which they would have occupied but for such order or such part thereof as has been rescinded, and may for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary”. 15. 15. After delivery of possession, landlord may file release under Section 16 of the Act before R.C. & E.O. within one month from taking delivery of possession, which shall be decided in accordance with law. However, in case within one month release application is not filed or if filed is rejected, then any person may apply for allotment of the building in dispute and for the said purpose vacancy must be notified in the newspapers as directed by this Court through the judgment in Jagdish Prasad v. District Judge, 2002 (1) ARC 327. 18. Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. ————