JUDGMENT

SEN, J.:— This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dated September 13, 1978 setting aside the order of the District Judge, Gorakhpur dated December 15, 1977 and restoring an order of allotment dated, September 7, 1977 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Gorakhpur under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

2. On the basis of an intimation given to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, a residential house belonging to the appellant which was in occupation of one Smt. Krishna Devi Asthana was got inspected by the Rent Control Inspector on September 2, 1977 in his absence. On the same day the Rent Control and Eviction Officer issued a notice declaring deemed vacancy of the demised premises under Section 12 (1) (a) of the Act calling upon persons desirous of getting allotment of the same or of filing objections to file their applications by September 7, 1977. Immediately on the service of the notice on September 6, 1977, the appellant appeared and filed an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer praying for 15 days time for filing his objection as the papers were with his lawyers clerk. It appears that on the issue of the aforesaid notice, respondent No. 2 Gunjeswar Prasad Tiwari who was a member of the State Legislative Assembly, made an application for allotment and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer made an order of allotment under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Act on September 7, 1977.

3. The appellant filed a revision before the District Judge under Section 18 of the Act mainly on the ground that no opportunity was afforded to him either to file objections or to make submissions as required under Rule 8 (2) framed under the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and further that no notice as required under Rule 9 (3) was ever served on him, nor was he heard in response to the notice. The learned District Judge upheld these objections and accordingly set aside the impugned order of allotment. On a petition by respondent No. 2 under Article 226 of the Constitution, a learned single Judge by his judgment has set aside the order of the learned District Judge on the ground that the appellant had been served with a notice by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and therefore he had knowledge that the question of allotment would be considered by him on September 7, 1977. But despite the notice he did not appear on that day and therefore he could not challenge the validity of the impugned order of allotment for want of notice under Rule 9 (3) of the Rules. The learned single Judge further held that the contention of the appellant that he was denied the opportunity of filing his objections or making submissions under Rule 8 (2) could not be sustained since the grant or refusal of adjournment was in the discretion of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the learned District Judge was not justified in interfering with the impugned order of allotment in his revisional jurisdiction. The learned single Judge observed that if the refusal of adjournment resulted in denial of an opportunity, the appellant has to blame himself.

4. The short question for consideration was whether the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had any authority and jurisdiction to make the impugned order of allotment without affording to the appellant the opportunity of a hearing as enjoined by proviso to Section 16 (1) of the Act before making the order, read with Rule 8 (2) of the Rules and without service of a notice as required under Rule 9 (3). The statutory provisions bearing on the question, insofar as relevant, are set out below :

"12. Deemed vacancy of building in certain cases

(1) 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