JUDGMENT Sunita Agarwal, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order of rejection of the allotment application dated 11.7.2015 filed on the ground that the sitting tenant had acquired a residential house and hence there is deemed vacancy under Section 12(3) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 3. The brief facts of the case are that the allotment application was filed on 11.7.2015 by one Safeer Ahmad Siddqui with the assertion that the sitting tenant Smt. Harvinder Kaur had acquired a residential house in the same Municipality and further that the applicant, prospective allottee requires this house for the need of his family. 4. On the presentation of the application, the report of the Rent Control Inspector was called for. Two reports dated 17.8.2015 and 8.9.2015 were submitted.The petitioners landlord filed a writ petition no. 41758 of 2015 before this Court with the assertion that the sitting tenant, namely, Smt. Harvinder Kaur had vacated the house in question and there is imminent possibility that she may handover the possession of the house without there being any allotment order. The said writ petition was disposed of with the following direction : - "Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the record, in order to meet the ends of justice, the writ petition is being disposed of with the following directions: - (1) The petitioners shall make an application raising all their grievances before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer,Additional District Magistrate (Administration),Saharanpur within a period of one week along with certified copy of this order. (2) The Rent Control and Eviction Officer shall proceed for allotment of the premises i.e. flat No. 3/1, Gatta Mill Colony,Ambala Road, Saharanpur in question after declaring the vacancy after putting notice to the sitting tenant. (3) An expeditious decision in accordance with law shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of submission of the application by the petitioners. (4) It is further directed that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/ADM(Administration), Saharanpur shall ensure that the flat in question will not be occupied by any third person except the sitting tenant i.e. respondent No.2 till an allotment order is passed after declaration of vacancy in accordance with law." 5. (4) It is further directed that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/ADM(Administration), Saharanpur shall ensure that the flat in question will not be occupied by any third person except the sitting tenant i.e. respondent No.2 till an allotment order is passed after declaration of vacancy in accordance with law." 5. The matter of declaration of vacancy was kept pending for a long time and hence a contempt petition was filed in which notices were issued on 14.10.2015. It appears that the matter has proceeded thereafter. The petitioner landlord filed affidavit on 2.11.2015 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer with the categorical assertion that Smt. Harvinder Kaur had acquired a residential house in Ambala Road, Behind Seven Seas Banquet Hall, Subhash Nagar, Saharanpur and a Municipal number 1/658 has been allotted to this house. This affidavit has not been replied by the respondent sitting tenant till date. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court to the order dated 6.11.2015 to submit that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was bent up to decide the vacancy matter in as much as he proceeded even in the absence of both the parties. The order has been passed only after consideration of the reports of the Rent Control Inspector ignoring the assertion of the petitioner that the sitting tenant had acquired residential house in the same Municipality. 7. He further submits that the order dated 6.11.2015 has been passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under the pressure of a Cabinet Minister namely Saheb Singh Saini who is also impleaded as respondent no.5 in the present writ petition. There is no justification for the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to sit in his office from 12.30 P.M. to 3.30 P.M. just to decide the vacancy matter in the absence of the parties. 8. This contention of the learned for the petitioner is not acceptable for the reason that there was a direction of the writ court to decide the matter of allotment within a period of two months and further in the contempt application filed by the petitioner, notices were issued to the officer on 14.10.2015. The Contempt Court had granted one opportunity to the officer concerned to decide the matter within a period of one month. The Contempt Court had granted one opportunity to the officer concerned to decide the matter within a period of one month. It appears that in view of the notice issued by the Contempt Court, the officer had proceeded to decide the matter in the absence of the parties. 9. However, on the merits of the order dated 6.11.2015 learned counsel for the respondent could not dispute the assertion of the landlord in the affidavit filed on 2.11.2015 regarding acquisition of residential house by the sitting tenant. This aspect of the matter has not been considered at all. In this view of the matter this court finds that the order dated 6.11.2015 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer cannot be sustained and is therefore set aside. However in order to grant an opportunity to the respondent no.3 Smt. Harvinder Kaur to rebut the assertions made in the affidavit dated 2.11.2015 of the landlord,it is provided that she may file her reply. 10. Shri Sanajy Maurya holding brief of Shri D.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submits that respondent no.3 shall file her reply within a period of eight weeks. 11. Further in view of the submission of the petitioner in paragraphs 48 to 54 in the writ petition wherein he has expressed lack of confidence upon the officer who is working under the delegated power of the District Magistrate, Saharanpur, it is provided that the District Magistrate shall personally look into the matter. 12. The affidavit filed by the petitioner dated 2.11.2015 and the affidavit in rebuttal, if any, filed by the respondent no.3 within a period of eight weeks as directed above shall be considered by the District Magistrate and appropriate order in accordance with law shall be passed within a further period of six weeks after providing due opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 13. It is made clear that no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to either of the parties and in case of any such adjournment heavy cost of at least Rs.5,000/- per adjournment shall be imposed upon the party concerned. 14. In case the respondent no.3 fails to file affidavit in rebuttal within the time provided above i.e. within a period of eight weeks, no further time shall be provided to her and the District Magistrate Saharanpur shall proceed to decide with the matter on merits. 15. 14. In case the respondent no.3 fails to file affidavit in rebuttal within the time provided above i.e. within a period of eight weeks, no further time shall be provided to her and the District Magistrate Saharanpur shall proceed to decide with the matter on merits. 15. It goes without saying that the directions given by this Court in the judgement and order dated 28.7.2015 shall be given due consideration while proceeding in the allotment matter by the District Magistrate, Saharanpur. 16. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed.