JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.—This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 5.7.1991 passed by opposite party No. 2 (contained as Annexure 10 to the writ petition) whereby the vacancy under Section 12 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (in short the “Act”) of the disputed premises has been declared and further quashing the notification dated 6.7.1991 (contained as Annexure 11 and 12 of the writ petition) whereby the notice has been issued by respondent No. 2 inviting the applications for allotment of the disputed premises. 2. This petition was filed impleading the prospective allottees as respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6. The counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 but no counter affidavit was filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Thereafter during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent No. 3 expired and his widow Smt. Parmeshwari Devi was substituted in his place as respondent No. 3/1. Notices were issued to Smt. Parmeshwari Devi respondent No. 3/1 but she did not response to the notice and vide order dated 19.12.2006 this Court held that the service of notice upon Smt. Parmeshwari Devi is sufficient under Chapter VIII Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, 1952. 3. The office also submitted a report on 30.7.2008 stating that no one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 3/1. The matter was taken up on 17.11.2008 but still no one appeared on behalf of the respondents as such the matter was adjourned to 19.11.2008 and ultimately the matter was finally taken up on 24.11.2008. Since no one is appearing on behalf of the respondents therefore such this Court has got an option but to proceed ex-parte. 4. The brief facts as emerged from the writ petition are as follows : 5. Mathura Prasad the sole owner of said building was residing in the disputed premises alongwith his family. He and his wife died in 1985 and 1986 respectively issueless and the said Mathura Prasad Seth bequeathed all his movables and immovables to Deity Bhagwan Laxmi Narain installed in a temple built by him during his life time in the same City and appointed his real nephew, Ram Kishore Seth as its life long Sarvarakar to manage the affairs of the properties dedicated through a registered will. The petitioner in the capacity of landlord/Sarvarakar started collecting the rent from the tenants of the trust. 6. The proceedings under Act No. 13 of 1972 was initiated sometime in 1990 when respondent No. 3 Ram Narain Mahendra (since deceased), a tenant of the shop on ground floor in the same building moved an application for allotment of the ground floor portion for godown purposes and opposite party No. 4 also moved an application for allotment of the first floor portion before opposite party No. 2. 7. The disputed premises consists of one kothri, latrine and bathroom situate at ground floor and one room, three kothris, sahan, latrine and bathroom on first floor of the building at Main Road, City Lakhimpur Kheri owned by Bhagwan Laxmi Narain Mandir Trust, Lakhimpur Kheri through its Sarvarakar Ram Kishore Seth (petitioner). 8. The Rent Control Inspector inspected the building on 16.3.1990 and without any intimation to the petitioner-landlord, found the disputed premises locked. On enquiry he came to know that both the portions were owned by Bhagwan Laxmi Narain Mandir Trust through its Sarvarakar Ram Kishore Seth (petitioner) and on the basis of certain statements the Rent Control Inspector, Lakhimpur submitted the adverse report and recommended for the declaration of vacancy and thereafter opposite party No. 2 passed ex-parte order notifying the vacancy and also issued notice inviting applications for the allotment of the disputed premises. In pursuant to the said notification respondent Nos. 3 to 6 submitted the allotment applications. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Rent Control Inspector in collusion with the prospective allottees (respondent Nos. 3 to 6) submitted false and concocted report without any prior notice to the petitioner as provided under Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (in short “Rules 1972”). 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Courts below without discussing the case or recording any findings has simply passed only one line non speaking order on the basis of the report of the Rent Control Inspector as follows : “Riktita Pradarshit Ki Jai.” 11. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Courts below without discussing the case or recording any findings has simply passed only one line non speaking order on the basis of the report of the Rent Control Inspector as follows : “Riktita Pradarshit Ki Jai.” 11. It is further submitted that neither any notice of any nature was served before the inspection of the disputed premises nor after the declaration of vacancy, before issuing the notification for inviting the applications for the allotment, as such the entire order is illegal, unjust, erroneous and in violation of the principles of natural justice. 12. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by no stretch of imagination the vacancy can be declared. The disputed premises is in actual use of the trust and the petitioner. The regular meetings of the trust are held in the disputed premises and the goods of the petitioner as well as of Bhagwan Laxmi Narain Mandir Trust are also kept in the disputed premises. The disputed premises is the main office of the trust and this important fact has not been controverted by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in para 11 of their counter affidavit in reply to the writ petition. 13. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 ordered publication in two dailies of Kanpur as the petitioner was then residing in Kanpur. Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 got the notice published only in one newspaper namely ‘Aaj’, that too in Lucknow Edition instead of Kanpur on 3.5.1991 inviting appearance/objection on 3.5.1991 (on the very same date) by 3:00 p.m. before respondent No. 2. Therefore, such publication or notice cannot be treated as valid in the eyes of law. 14. My further attention has been drawn to para 20 of the writ petition which reads as follows: “20. That opposite parties Nos. 3 to 6 fully knew the correct address of the petitioner but got the process issued on wrong address. O.P. No. 2 ordered O.P.’s No. 3 to 6 for publication of service upon the petitioner in two local dailies of Kanpur but the said O.P.’s flouting the orders of O.P. No. 2 got published a notice in a single daily ‘Aaj’ published from Lucknow dated 3.5.1991 inviting objections by 3 p.m. at Lakhimpur Kheri on 3.5.1991. O.P. No. 2 ordered O.P.’s No. 3 to 6 for publication of service upon the petitioner in two local dailies of Kanpur but the said O.P.’s flouting the orders of O.P. No. 2 got published a notice in a single daily ‘Aaj’ published from Lucknow dated 3.5.1991 inviting objections by 3 p.m. at Lakhimpur Kheri on 3.5.1991. This was done so that the petitioner could not know the date fixed for objections and thus by deceitful means the premises in dispute may be declared vacant and allotted ex parte. It shows the malafide intention by playing fraud and concealment by O.P.’s 3 to 6.” 15. It is further submitted that in reply to the aforesaid paragraph of the writ petition, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have admitted that the notice was published only in daily "Aaj” and no publication was made in any other newspaper and they have not also controverted the facts that the publication was made on 3.5.1991 mentioning that the objection was to be filed on the very same date i.e. 3.5.1991 by 3:00 p.m. at Lakhimpur Kheri. 16. It is further submitted that the disputed property belongs to the trust and it was never let out to any person, as such according to the provisions of Rule 1972 neither the property can be declared vacant nor it can be allotted to any third person. 17. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 18. The vital facts which emerged from the writ petition are as follows : (i) The petitioner being the Sarvarakar of the trust is the landlord of the premises and is also collecting rent from the various tenants of the trust. (ii) Admittedly no notice was served under Rules 8(2) and 9(3) of Rules 1972 before the declaration of vacancy and issuance of notification for inviting the application for allotment of the disputed premises. (ii) Admittedly no notice was served under Rules 8(2) and 9(3) of Rules 1972 before the declaration of vacancy and issuance of notification for inviting the application for allotment of the disputed premises. (iii) The direction of the court below to publish the notice in two daily newspaper from Kanpur was not complied with and only the notice was published in one daily newspaper ‘Aaj’ of Lucknow edition dated 3.5.1991 wherein the date for filing the objections was mentioned 3.5.1991 (same day) at 3:00 p.m. (iv) The respondent No. 2 without discussing the case or recording any finding simply passed only one line order as follows : “Riktita Pradarshit Ki Jai.” (i) The Rent Control Inspector after alleged inspection found the premises locked, nowhere in the inspection report it was mentioned that the landlord had removed substantially his effects from the disputed premises as provided under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. (ii) It has also come on the record that the disputed building was never let out before as such the District Magistrate is not empowered to allot the said building without the consent of the landlord as provided under Rule 10 (9) of Rules 1972. 19. The aforesaid facts which has emerged from the record of the case clearly show that the ex-parte vacancy under no circumstances was justified. Mere keeping the disputed premises locked cannot be a ground for declaring the vacancy under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. There are catena of decisions on this point where this Court has deprecated the practice of declaring the vacancy only on the ground that the premises was found locked. Unless and until substantially goods are not found to be removed, no vacancy can be declared under Section 12 (1)(a) of the Act. None of the provisions as provided under Section 12 of the Act are applicable in the matter. 20. Where the building has never been let out before, it cannot be allotted without the consent of the landlord as provided under Rule 10(9) of Rules 1972. It has not come on the record that the procedure as prescribed under Rules 10(9) of Rule 1972 was followed. 21. The entire proceedings of declaring vacancy was conducted behind the back of the petitioner and no notice was ever served upon the petitioner. 22. It has not come on the record that the procedure as prescribed under Rules 10(9) of Rule 1972 was followed. 21. The entire proceedings of declaring vacancy was conducted behind the back of the petitioner and no notice was ever served upon the petitioner. 22. The Apex Court in Naresh Chandra Agarwal v. Bank of Baroda and others, 2001 (19) LCD 1972, has held that the service of notice on party cannot be a mere formality but should, in fact be reality. No finding or any discussion has been made in the impugned order regarding the service of notice upon the petitioner. The impugned order itself is “one line order”, there is absolutely no application of mind and in the most mechanical manner the impugned order has been passed. 23. It has been held by this Court in number of decisions that the service of notice under Rule 8 is mandatory. This Court in Navin Chandra Agarwal v. Ist Addl. District Judge, Nainital, 2001(19) LCD 264, has held that Rule 8 of Rules 1972 is mandatory. The non-compliance of Rule 8 renders order declaring vacancy as well as allotment or release invalid. It has been followed in the latest decision of this Court in Mahendra Singh Chowdhary v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mathura, 2008 (2) ARC 595 . This Court in the aforesaid case inter-alia has held as follows : “I do not find least error in the order passed by the Revisional Court. By virtue of Rule 8(2) of the Rules framed under the Act, it is essential to give notice to the occupant also and as far as possible inspection should be made in the presence of occupant also. Even if the case taken up by the petitioner is accepted still allotment order was without jurisdiction as neither any notice before inspection had been given to him before declaring vacancy. In the following authorities, it has been held that allotment order is vitiated if any of the three notices is not given, i.e. notice before inspection, before declaration of vacancy and notice before allotment : (1) Yogendra Tiwari v. District Judge, Gorakhpur, AIR 1984 SC 1149 : 1984 (2) ARC 7; (2) Ganpat Roy v. Additional District Magistrate, AIR 1985 SC 1635 : 1985 (2) ARC 73.” 24. The Court below applied very superficial and casual approach in passing a slip shod impugned order only of “one line” and skirted the relevant issue arising in the case. The impugned order passed is based on completing misreading of the case and mis-conception of legal position relevant to the matter. 25. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the Courts below cannot be sustained. The Apex Court in R.K. Barnwal v. Ram Lakhan, 2007 AIR SCW 3250 has held that even if landlord has lost release application from both the Courts below still if in the opinion of the High Court, impugned orders are erroneous in law, then all efforts must be made to decide the writ petition finally instead of remanding the matter. The Supreme Court in AIR 2002 SC 200 , G.C. Kapoor v. N.K. Bhasin out rightly allowed the release application of the landlord, which had been dismissed by Prescribed Authority/Appellate Court as well as High Court and this authority has been discussed by this Court in Mohd. Arif v. A.D.J., 2005(2) ARC 793 . 26. In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 5.7.1991 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) and notification dated 6.7.1991 issued by respondent No. 2 are quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. ————