( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from a judgment of our brother Dwivedi quashing by certiorari an order passed by a commissioner under Section 7-A (4) of the U. P. (temporary) Control of Rent and eviction Act on 6-1-1961 and an order passedly a District Magistrate on 25-1-1961 in compliance with it. The facts are as follows. The accommodation in dispute was allotted by the district Magistrate on 10-12-1955 to one B. K. singh, who was an inspector in his own office. The Inspector was subsequently transferred to Sitapur and he managed to get the accommodation allottee on 21-5-1956 jointly in his and respondent no. 1 Moti Lal Chawlas names. Tnere was nothing in common between the Inspector and Moti Lal Chawla and they did not form any partnership or any other association of persons which could be recognised as one juristic entity. It is clear that the Inspector misusing his position as such got the accommodation allotted jointly in his and Moti Lal Chaawlas names. He did not need the accommodation after his transfer to sitapur but wanted to retain some control. The respondent moti Lal Cbawla also did not need any accommoda-tion because admittedly he lives in another mohalla Khyall Ganj. it is regrettable that the District Magistrate passed such a improper alloment order and it shows how provisions of the Rent Control Act are misused by District Magistrates. On 18-7-1958 the appellant applied to the District magistrate for allotment of the accommodation in his name alleging that it was vacant and that neither the inspector nor Moti Lal Chawla was living in it. While this application was pending Moti Lal Chawla and respondent No. 2 Vishnu Naram rastogi entered into some sort of a partnership on 5-8-1958 for running a cnemists business. On 11-10-1958 the District Magistrate allotted the accommodation to the appellant and on 24-10-1958 the two respondents objected to the allotment order on the ground that they had entered into a partnership to run a chemists business in the accommodation. The Act has no provision for such an objection and the District Magistrate dismissed it. Then the District magistrate issued a notice under Section 7-A (1) of the Act to the respondents on 26-11-1959 calling upon them to vacate the accommodation. Moti Lal Chawla filed an objection against the notice repeating what he had said in his objection dated 24-10-1958. The District Magistrate on 7-4-1960 after hearing the objection not only withdrew the notice issued by him under Section 7a (1) but also cancelled the allotment order dated 11-10-1958. He presumably acted under the proviso to Section 7a (1 ). The appellant applied to the Commissioner to revise the order under section 7a (4) and the Commissiciner on 6-1-1961 set it aside on the view that the partnership alleged by the respondents was a begus partnership set up as a cloak for getting possession over the accommodation and directed the District Magistrate to proceed under Section 7a to get the accommodation vacated by the respondents. This is one of the orders that has been quashed by our learned brother. The respondents applied to the State Government to revise it put in vain. In compliance with it the District Magistrate on 25-1-1961 passed the other order that has been quashed, vacating his earlier order and on 17-8-1961 issued a notice under Section 7a (2) calling upon the respondents to vacate the accommodation by the next day. Thereupon the respondents applied for certiorari and this Court stayed forcible eviction of that respondents during the hearing of the petition. After hearing it our learned brother allowed it on the ground that the commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order of 6-1-1961 because IT was held in Ram Sarup v. Shihhar Chand, 1960 ALL LJ 810 : (AIR 1961 All 221) (FB) that the words has wrongly refused to act" in Section 7a (4) are redundant and meaningless and that a commissioner has jurisdiction to revise an order passed by a District Magistrate only If