JUDGMENT

CHANDRACHUD, J.:— This appeal by special leave raises a short. though important question under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 13 of 1972.

2. Respondents 2 and 3 filed an application under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act for the release of certain residential premises of which the appellants claim to be their tenants. Respondent 1, acting as a Rent Controller, directed a Senior Inspector to inspect the premises and make a report. Accordingly, the Senior Inspector inspected the premises and submitted a report on April 9, 1974 stating; "After hearing the parties it would be proper to take further action." The Senior Inspector seems to have found that the premises were in occupation of 3 persons two of whom claimed to be partners of the appellant-firm M/s. Tirlok Singh and Co. On receipt of the report respondent 1 passed the impugned order. "Let the vacancy be notified", admittedly without granting any hearing to the appellants.

3. On May 23, 1974 the appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad challenging the aforesaid order on the ground that it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Pending admission of the writ petition the High Court stayed further proceedings consequent on the order. On August 7, 1974, a Division Bench of the High Court rejected the writ petition summarily, with a brief speaking order. It felt that the writ petition was premature and that the proper remedy for the appellants was to approach respondent 1 under Section 16 (5) (a) of the Act for reviewof the order directing that the vacancy be notified.

4. In April, 1975 the appellants filed a petition for special leave in this Court against the order of the High Court but during the pendency of that petition, respondent 1 issued a notice to the appellants stating that the release application filed by respondents 2 and 3 would be taken up for hearing on May 19. On May 21, 1975 respondent 1 passed a release order and, though moved in that behalf by the appellants, refused to stay further proceedings. On May 30, 1975 the appellants filed an appeal against the release order to the District Judge, Lucknow who has stayed further proceedings. That appeal is pending.

5. The narrow question for determination is whether the order passed by respondent 1 on May 20, 1974 directing that the vacancy be notified is illegal for the reason that it was passed without affording a hearing to the appellants. This question incidentally involves an inquiry into the correctness of the view expressed by the High Court that the writ petition filed by the appellants was premature.

6. It is necessary for a proper appreciation of the controversy involved in this appeal to understand the scheme of the U. P. Rent Act. 13 of 1972. Chapter, III entitled "Regulation of Letting" provides by Section 12 (1) that a landlord or tenant of a building shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building or a part thereof if (a) he has substantially removed his effects therefrom, or (b) he has allowed it to be occupied by any person who is not a member of his family, or (c) in the case of a residential building, he as well as members of his family have taken up residence, not being temporary residence, elsewhere. By Section 12 (4), any building or part of a building which a landlord or a tenant has ceased to occupy shall be deemed to be vacant. by Section 13,where a landlord or a tenant ceases to occupy a building no person can occupy it otherwise than under an order of allotment or release passed under Section 16. Section 15 imposes an obligation on every landlord to give notice of the vacancy to the District Magistrate whenever a building falls vacant.

7. Section 16 which deals with allotment and release of vacant buildings provides by sub-section (1) (a) that the District Magistrate may by order require the landlord to let any vacant building to any person specified in the order, to be called an allotment order. S