PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. The dispute in the present writ petition relates to a room, verandah, open court-yard, kitchen and latrine situate on the ground floor of house No. 119/450, Darshanpur, Kanpur Nagar of which the petitioners are indisputably the owners. The said accommodation was in the tenancy of one Tapsya Charan Mishra who constructed his own house at Panki (Kanpur) and shifted there, without delivering the possession of the accommodation in question to the petitioners on whose behalf Tapasya Charan Mishra was inducted as the tenant. He never informed the petitioner that he is going to vacate the tenanted accommodation. 2. It appears that the respondent No. 3 Shri Shiv Charan Shukla initiated proceedings for allotment of the said accommodation on the ground that Tapasya Charan Mishra has vacated the disputed accommodation and the said accommodation is open for allotment. On the said information, the proceeding for declaration of vacancy was initiated by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer. The accommodation in question was ultimately declared as vacant. The applications for allotment were invited. By the impugned order, the said accommodation has been allotted in favour of the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3, armed with allotment order in his favour, entered into possession of the property in question. The case of the petitioners is that only then, they came to know about the proceedings. As soon as the petitioners came to know about the allotment order in favour of the respondent No. 3, they pre ferred a revision under section 18 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 along with an application for condonation of delay in its filing. The Vllth Additional District Judge, Kanpur by the order dated 14. 10. 1999 condoned the delay. The Court be low recorded a finding that on perusal of record, it is evident that the land-, lords had no information about the proceedings nor they appeared. They came to know about the allotment order on 10. 11. 1998 and the revision was filed on 17. 11. 1998. The revision was taken up for hearing thereafter. By the impugned order dated 5. 5. 2000, the revision has been dismissed. Challenging the said or der, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. They came to know about the allotment order on 10. 11. 1998 and the revision was filed on 17. 11. 1998. The revision was taken up for hearing thereafter. By the impugned order dated 5. 5. 2000, the revision has been dismissed. Challenging the said or der, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Sri Prateek Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the peti tioners submits that all the proceedings for declaration of vacancy and allot ment are null and void, as they have been conducted and concluded in violation of Rules 8 (2) and 9 (3) of the Rules framed under the Act. However, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that he is not challenging the order declar ing the accommodation in question as vacant, but he confines his arguments with regard to non-compliance of Rule 9 (3) of the Rules framed under the Act. The submission is that no notice, as required, after declaration of vacancy and before allotment, was given by the authority concerned and, as such, the im pugned order of allotment passed in favour of contesting respondent No. 3 is "null and void". He further submits that had the petitioners been aware about the proceedings, they would have applied for its release. Since no opportunity was afforded by the authority concerned, the petitioners have been illegally deprived of their right to apply for release of the disputed accommodation. 4. Learned Counsel for the contesting respondent No. 3, on the other hand, submits that since release applications has been filed by the petitioners and the petitioners are not challenging the order declaring the accommodation in question as vacant, no interference in the present writ petition is called for. He further submits that the petitioners have already filed an application for re lease, as provided for under section 16 (5) of the Act and as such, the Court should not entertain the present writ petition. 5. Considered the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Only question mooted in the present writ petition is as to whether a no tice as contemplated under Rule 9 (3) of the Rules framed under the Act, was served on the petitioners of not. 7. It may be noted that on 17. 9. 1998, the accommodation in question was declared as vacant and thereafter, 9. 10. 1998 was the next date fixed. 7. It may be noted that on 17. 9. 1998, the accommodation in question was declared as vacant and thereafter, 9. 10. 1998 was the next date fixed. Before declaration of vacancy, the notice of proceedings was served on the petitioners by substituted service by way of publication in a newspaper namely dainik Ujala. After declaration of vacancy, from the order sheet, a copy whereof has been filed along with rejoinder affidavit, , it is evident that the notice was sought to be served on the petitioners through process server. The report of pro cess server is dated 8. 10. 1998. The process server has reported that a person came from the house claiming himself as Chandra Dutt Dwivedi, who after reading the notice, refused to accept the same. He noted the date as mentioned in the notice. The notice was thereafter affixed on the door in the presence of the witnesses. 8. The question now arises as to whether the said service is sufficient ser vice or not. 9. It may be noted that although in the report of the process server, it is mentioned that the service by affixation was done in the presence of the wit nesses but their names etc. have not been mentioned and also from the report it does appear that the said affixation was done in the presence of any witness. 10. Rule 28 of the Rules, framed under the Act provides various modes of service. For the sake of convenience, the same is reproduced below: - "28. Service of notice - (1) A notice issued by the District Magistrate, the Prescribed Authority or the Appellate or Revising Authority under the provisions of the Act shall be served on the person concerned - (a) by giving or tendering it to such person, or his Counsel; or (b) by giving or tendering it to any adult member of his family; or (c) if no such person is found, by leaving it at his last known place of abode or business or in the case of an appeal or revision at his address as given under Rule 6; or (d) if none of the means aforesaid is available, by affixing it on some conspicuous part of his last known place of abode or business or in the case of an appeal or revision at his address as given under Rule 6. (2) If a party files a duly stamped and addressed envelope for service of any notice, then it shall be served by registered post. (3) In the case of an appeal or revision unless the appellant has taken action under sub-rule (2), the Appellate or Revising Authority shall send the notices to the District Magistrate or the Prescribed Authority, as the case may be, for having service effected. " 11. A bare reading of the aforesaid Rule would show that mode of service by affixation is available only when the other modes of service as provided under clause (a), (b) and (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 28 are not available. It follows that attempt should be made to follow the modes of service in seriatim as provided in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d ). If a service is not possible to be affected in any of the modes as provided for in clauses (a), (b), (c), then service by affixation which is the last mode of service, should be resorted to. There should be something on record to indicate that the mode of service as provided for in clauses (a), (b), (c) is not available. It is not dependent upon the sweet will of the process server to affix a notice on some conspicuous part of last known place of abode of a person, if the addressee refuses to accept the notice. At the most, he should have reported the matter back to the authority concerned to record an order that none of the modes as prescribed under clauses (a), (b), (c) is available. It is no bodys case that the service of notice was tried to be affected as per clauses (a), (b), (c) of Rule 28 (1) of the Rules. Interestingly, no attempt was made to serve the notice by registered post as contemplated under sub-rule (2) of Rule 28. Service of notice by affixation is the weakest mode of service. There are instance and instances that service of notice by affixation are many times manipulated one. 12. In view of the above, it is evident that no notice as required under Rule 28 was served on the petitioners. It follows that Rule 9 (3) has not been com plied with before allotting the disputed accommodation to the contesting re spondent. 13. 12. In view of the above, it is evident that no notice as required under Rule 28 was served on the petitioners. It follows that Rule 9 (3) has not been com plied with before allotting the disputed accommodation to the contesting re spondent. 13. This Court in Kusum Lata Yadav (Smt.) v. Additional District Judge, Moradabad and others, 2005 (58) ALR 198 after taking into consideration various pronouncements of the Apex Court including Yogendra Tewari v. D. J. 1984 (10) ALR 285 (SC) and Ganpat Roy v. A. D. M. , 1985 (11) ALR 423 (SC) has held that an allotment order is bad in law and without jurisdic tion in any of the following contingencies: - (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 be fore allotment. (iv) Allottee takes possession from the previous tenant. " 14. In view of the above, it is evident that no notice as required under Rule 9 (3) was served on the petitioners. Therefore, the allotment order passed in favour of the respondent No. 3 cannot be allowed to stand. , 15. Sub -section (3) of section 18 of the Act provides that, 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 po sition 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. 16. In view of the fact that the allotment order has been found to be illegal and contrary to law and the same has been set aside by this judgment, the re spondent No. 3 is directed to restore back possession to the petitioners within a period of one month failing which the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, shall evict the respondent No. 3 or any other person who so ever may be found in possession of the disputed accommodation by force. The petitioners, if so advised, may apply to the District Magistrate, Kanpur for release of the disputed accommodation within a period of three months from today. The petitioners, if so advised, may apply to the District Magistrate, Kanpur for release of the disputed accommodation within a period of three months from today. If they fail to do so or the release application is ultimately rejected the accommodation in question shall be open for allotment and the authority shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 17. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed, as indicated above. 18. No order as to costs. Petition Allowed. .