JUDGMENT Mahendra Dayal,J. The defendants-appellants have preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.03.1972 passed by the learned Munsif, Barabanki in Regular Suit No.276 of 1969 and the judgment and order dated 30.09.1981 passed by the First Additional District and Session Judge, Barabanki in Regular Civil Appeal No.39 of 1979. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this second appeal are that the plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for recovery of Rs.300/- as arrears of rent and ejectment of the defendants-appellants from the shop in dispute, which was allotted to Shri Kesav Ram Gupta vide allotment order dated 29.03.1963. The monthly rent was Rs.24/- per month. The case of the plaintiffs-respondents was that Kesav Ram Gupta had sublet the shop illegally and without the consent of the plaintiffs-respondents, to Amar Nath and Gopti Nath defendants nos. 3 and 4 of the original suit. It was further alleged that Amar Nath had an influence in the office of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and had obtained an allotment order in favour of his wife Smt. Kastauri Devi. The plaintiffs-respondents alleged that they had no knowledge of the said allotment order passed in favour of Smt. Kasturi Devi. The plaintiffs-respondents served a combined notice dated 06.11.1969 terminating the tenancy of Kesav Ram Gupta and the alleged sub-tenants which was served upon them but as they failed to vacate the premises in their occupation, suit was filed for the relief of ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.300/-. 3. Smt. Kasturi Devi defendant-appellant No.2 contested the suit and filed her written statement. The remaining defendants of the original suit did not file any written statement. Consequently, the suit proceeded ex-parte against them. The appellant-defendant No.2 denied the factum of sub-tenancy and stated that she had purchased all the materials of the shop along with furniture from the defendant-appellant no.1, who himself reported the vacancy to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the shop was subsequently allotted to the appellant-defendant no.2. It was further alleged that after the allotment order in favour of the appellant no.2, the defendant-appellant no.1 Kesav Ram Gupta had no concern with the shop. It was also alleged that the plaintiffs-respondents had accepted the rent from the appellant-defendant no.2 and as such they were estopped from denying her status as tenant. It was further alleged that after the allotment order in favour of the appellant no.2, the defendant-appellant no.1 Kesav Ram Gupta had no concern with the shop. It was also alleged that the plaintiffs-respondents had accepted the rent from the appellant-defendant no.2 and as such they were estopped from denying her status as tenant. The defendant-appellant no.2 further alleged that the rent upto November 1969 had already been deposited in the Court and she was ready to pay the arrears of rent to the plaintiffs-respondents. The defendant-appellant no.2 also took it as a ground that she was not served with any notice as required under Section 3(1)(a) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the U.P. Act No.3 of 1947). 4. The learned Munsif, before whom, the trial was pending framed four issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. The first issue was as to whether the defendant no.1 Kesav Ram Gupta had sublet the accommodation to the defendants nos. 2 to 4. The second issue was to the effect as to whether the defendant-appellant no.2 was the tenant of the shop in question. The third issue was framed on the validity of the notice and fourth issue was with regard to the relief to which plaintiffs-respondents were entitled. The learned trial court on the basis of the evidence on record recorded a finding that the defendant-appellant no.2 was not the tenant of the defendant no.1 but was the tenant of the plaintiffs-respondents. The next issue no.2 was also decided in favour of the defendant-appellant no.2 holding her as tenant of the shop in question. With regard to validity of the notice, the learned trial court held that the notice was invalid. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the suit was decreed only in respect of the arrears of rent but was dismissed for the relief of ejectment. The plaintiffs-respondents were given liberty to withdraw the rent deposited by the defendants-appellants no.2 to 4 in the Court. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the plaintiffs-respondents preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Barabanki, which was allowed vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.1981. The plaintiffs-respondents were given liberty to withdraw the rent deposited by the defendants-appellants no.2 to 4 in the Court. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the plaintiffs-respondents preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Barabanki, which was allowed vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.1981. The learned appellate Court found that the allotment order passed in favour of the defendant-appellant no.2 was not a valid order because there was no vacancy at all in respect of the shop in question. It was further concluded by the learned appellate Court that from the evidence on record and the circumstances of the case it was proved beyond doubt that the defendant no.1 had sublet the shop in question to the defendants nos. 2 to 4. With the aforesaid findings, learned appellate Court allowed the appeal and while setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, a decree for ejectment was also passed. During the pendency of the suit, the original defendant no.1 Kesav Ram Gupta died and his heirs were substituted in his place. During the pendency of the second appeal, the widow of Kesav Ram Gupta, namely, Smt. Chandrawati also died and the defendants-appellants nos. 3 and 4, namely Amar Nath and Gopi Nath also died and their legal heirs were substituted in their place. The original plaintiff-respondent Mahadeo Prasad had died during the pendency of the first appeal and during the pendency of second appeal his two sons, namely Babu Ram Gupta and Shankar Lal also died and in their place, their legal heirs were also substituted. 6. I have heard Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Umesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents. 7. At the very outset, it is worthwhile to mention that the dispute between the parties is very old as the original suit was filed in the year 1969 and the second appeal is being decided after a gap of about 45 years. The controversy between the parties is as to whether the original defendant namely, Kesav Ram Gupta had sublet the shop under his tenency to the original defendants nos. The controversy between the parties is as to whether the original defendant namely, Kesav Ram Gupta had sublet the shop under his tenency to the original defendants nos. 2 to 4 and the next point for consideration in this second appeal is as to whether the validity of an allotment order can be looked into by the civil court while deciding the suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment. Although no substantial questions of law were framed at the time of admitting the second appeal in the year 1982 and even subsequent thereto, but since the parties have been heard on merits, the second appeal is being disposed of on all the substantial questions of law as framed in the memo of appeal. 8. The undisputed facts are that the original defendant no.1, namely, Kesav Ram Gupta was a tenant in respect of the disputed shop on the basis of an allotment order passed in the year 1963 in his favour on monthly rent of Rs.24/-. According to the plaintiff-respondent, he sublet the shop in his occupation to the defendants nos. 3 and 4 and this was done without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs-respondents, who are admittedly the owners/landlords of the shop in question. After termination of the tenency by issuing a notice, the plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment, which was partly decreed and partly dismissed. 9. The learned counsel for the defendants-appellants has submitted that the learned trial court had rightly held that sub-tenency was not proved and Smt. Kasturi Devi defendant no.2 was a valid allottee on the basis of the allotment order dated 29.08.1964. The learned appellate Court could not have gone into the question of validity of the allotment order and could not have reversed the findings arrived at by the learned trial court. According to the defendant-appellant no.2, she purchased the material available in the shop along with furniture from the original defendant no.1 and started business through her husband. The learned appellate Court has held the allotment order invalid only on the ground that there was no vacancy of the disputed shop, hence, Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no jurisdiction to pass an order of allotment in favour of the defendant-appellant no.2. The learned appellate Court has held the allotment order invalid only on the ground that there was no vacancy of the disputed shop, hence, Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no jurisdiction to pass an order of allotment in favour of the defendant-appellant no.2. The learned appellate Court found that the allotment order was fraudulently obtained as all the defendants were closely related to each other and the real brother of the original defendant no.3 Amar Nath was employed as Inspector in the office of Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Barabanki. The learned appellate Court was also of the view that since the allotment order was passed merely after ten days from the date of moving an application for allotment, therefore, it indicates that the allotment order has been obtained by the defendant-appellant no.2 in collusion with the staff of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. 10. Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that under the provisions of U.P. Act No.3 of 1947, the provision for making an allotment is contained in Section 7 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 7 makes it obligatory to every landlord to intimate the vacancy within seven days after accommodation becomes vacant. It also makes obligatory for the tenant to intimate the vacancy within seven days of vacation of such accommodation by giving notice in writing to the District Magistrate. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 provides that the District Magistrate might by general or special order require a landlord to let or not to let any person any accommodation which had fallen vacant or was about fall vacant. Sub-section (3) of Section 7 prohibited every tenant not to sublet any portion of the accommodation except with the permission in writing of the landlord and of the District Magistrate previously obtained. Thus, from the reading of Section 7, it is clear that in case of vacancy, the District Magistrate was authorized to pass an order of allotment. According to the defendant-appellant no.2, she had purchased all the materials along with furniture of the shop from the original defendant no.1, who had himself intimated the vacancy to the District Magistrate upon which an order of allotment was passed on the application of the defendant-appellant no.2. According to the defendant-appellant no.2, she had purchased all the materials along with furniture of the shop from the original defendant no.1, who had himself intimated the vacancy to the District Magistrate upon which an order of allotment was passed on the application of the defendant-appellant no.2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that if the plaintiffs-respondents had any grievance with regard to the allotment order passed in favour of the defendant-appellant no.2, they could have challenged the same before the Rent Control Authorities as provided under the Act, but they did not do so and allowed the allotment order to become final. It has been argued that Section 7A was added in the U.P. Act No.3 of 1947 by way of amendment, according to which, the District Magistrate himself had a power to call upon a person in occupation to show within time fixed by him as to why he should not be evicted thereform in case the District Magistrate had reason to believe that the person had in contravention of the order occupied the accommodation or in part thereto. The plaintiffs-respondents had, therefore, an option to assail the allotment order passed in favour of the defendant-appellant no.2 before the District Magistrate by raising objection that the allotment order had been passed in violation of the provisions of the Act and the District Magistrate had power to recall the same. Since the plaintiffs-respondents did not opt for the legal course open to them to challenge the allotment order, they could not have agitated this question before the trial court and actually there was absolutely no relief prayed for by the plaintiffs-respondents either to declare the allotment order void or cancel the allotment order. It is a settled law that once an order of allotment is passed in favour of a person, he would be deemed to be a authorized tenant unless the allotment order is set aside. The order of allotment is a direction to the landlord to let the accommodation to the allottee and thereupon the landlord gives the possession of the allotted premises to the allottee and become authorized tenant. 11. The order of allotment is a direction to the landlord to let the accommodation to the allottee and thereupon the landlord gives the possession of the allotted premises to the allottee and become authorized tenant. 11. So far as the power of the civil court with regard to examine the validity of the allotment order is concerned, the submission of the learned Senior Advocate is that since the U.P. Act No.3 of 1947 itself provided for the recall or cancellation of the allotment order, the civil court had no jurisdiction to examine the validity of the allotment order specially in a case of arrears of rent and ejectment. 12. The submission on the behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents is that the civil court is a competent court to go into the question and decide for it as to whether the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had any jurisdiction to pass the allotment order. If the civil court finds that there was no vacancy in respect of the premises in dispute then certainly the Rent Control and Eviction Officer would have no jurisdiction to pass any order of allotment. The learned appellate Court on the basis of the evidence on record found that the original defendant no.2 Kesav Ram Gupta had removed his effects thereform and had handed over the possession of the shop in question to the defendant no.3, therefore, there was a presumption of subletting. 13. Shri Umesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents has further submitted that in the cases of subletting, sometimes no evidence is available to show that the possession has been handed over for consideration, but it can be presumed from the circumstances of the case. The defendant-appellant no.2 was a Pardanashin lady and could not do any business independently and, therefore, the original tenant Kesav Ram Gupta handed over the possession of the shop to the original defendant no.3, who is the husband of the defendant-appellant no.2 and in order to save his possession, he managed to obtain an allotment order in favour of his wife Smt. Kasturi Devi and the same was done with the help of a near relative of the defendant no.3, who was Rent Control Inspector in the same office. Since, it was a clear case of subletting, the learned appellate Court found that in case of subletting, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no jurisdiction to declare the vacancy and pass allotment order. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has relied upon a decision reported in 1970 A.W.R. Page 581 - Inayat Ullah vs. Muzaffar Hussain and another in which it has been held that a civil court can go into the question as to declaration of the vacancy and decide it for itself, coming to conclusion that there was no vacancy. In a case where the vacancy is wrongly declared, it was always open to the civil court to go into the question and decide the same. If it is found that there was no vacancy, the order of the allotment could not be upheld. 14. Sri U.K. Srivastava has argued that in most of the cases subletting is a matter of secret arrangement between the tenant and sub-tenant and that can be proved only by the circumstances and the surrounding facts. He has relied upon a decision reported in 1997 (1) A.R.C. Page 158 - Shiv Dayal Malhotra vs. M/s. Harish Chandra & Sons, Aligarh and others in which this Hon'ble Court has held that subletting is a matter of secret arrangement between the parties and the surrounding circumstances are the only evidence which prove a subletting. In the present case, it was not disputed that the defendant no.1 permitted the defendant no.3 to carry on business from the disputed shop as such there was presumption of subletting. The allotment order obtained by the defendant no.3 in the name of his wife Smt. Kasturi Devi was a sham transaction only to show that there was no sub-tenancy but as argued earlier the defendant appellant no.2 being a pardanashin lady could not run a business and, therefore, her husband defendant no.3 continued with the business from the disputed shop and Smt. Kasturi Devi contested the suit claiming herself to be lawful tenant on the basis of the allotment order which appears to has been obtained by collusion with the Rent Control Authorities. The learned appellate Court was perfectly justified in holding that the allotment order was not valid because there was no vacancy and in fact it was a case of sub-tenancy. 15. The learned appellate Court was perfectly justified in holding that the allotment order was not valid because there was no vacancy and in fact it was a case of sub-tenancy. 15. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings and the records of the case, there is no doubt that there is an allotment order in favour of the defendant-appellant no.2 Smt. Kasturi Devi. It is also not disputed that under the provisions of U.P. Act No.3 of 1947, the plaintiffs-respondents being landlord had an option to challenge the allotment order but in spite of having knowledge of the same, they elected not to challenge the allotment order and allowed it to become final. It is also not disputed that in the case of arrears of rent and ejectment, they did not challenge the validity of the allotment order and also did not seek any relief for cancellation of the allotment order. In view of this, I am of the view that since the plaintiffs-respondents had an option to challenge the allotment order before the Rent Control Authorities, civil court ought not to have gone into the question of validity of allotment order which was passed after the premises was found vacant and the defendant-appellant no.2 also took possession of the same on the basis of the allotment order. Merely on the ground that the defendants are related to each other and the defendant no.3 was an employee in the office of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, it cannot be presumed that the allotment order was obtained in collusion with the Rent Control Authorities, unless there is concrete evidence to that effect. The order of allotment in favour of the defendant-appellant no.2 was, therefore, a valid allotment order and the learned trial court had rightly concluded that the defendant no.2 was tenant of the plaintiffs-respondents and not of the defendant-appellant no.1. 16. The trial court framed a specific issue with regard to the validity of the notice and it concluded that the notice issued by the plaintiffs-respondents was not a valid notice. The learned appellate Court has not discussed the issue with regard to validity of notice and, therefore, the findings of the learned trial court with regard to notice became final and on this ground also, the suit could not have been decreed by the learned appellate court. 17. The learned appellate Court has not discussed the issue with regard to validity of notice and, therefore, the findings of the learned trial court with regard to notice became final and on this ground also, the suit could not have been decreed by the learned appellate court. 17. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, I am of the view that the learned first appellate Court has wrongly gone into the question of validity of the allotment order and recorded a finding contrary to the findings recorded by the learned trial court with regard to sub-tenancy and validity of allotment order. The impugned judgment and order of the learned first appellate Court, therefore, cannot be allowed to stand and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the second appeal deserves to be allowed. 18. The second appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 30.09.1981 passed by the learned first Additional District Judge, Barabanki in Regular Civil Appeal No.39 of 1972 is set aside. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, Barabanki dated 17.03.1972 passed in Regular Suit No.276 of 1969 is affirmed. No order as to costs.