( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against an order of Mr. Justice James dated the 17th September, 1958, dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) THE appellant is the owner of two adjacent houses, one of which was in the occupation of a tenant. On the 17th October, 1956, the tenant vacated that house and made over possession of it to the appellant. Two days later on the 19th October, the appellant informed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the premises had fallen vacant, and at the same time he asked that they be released in his favour as they were needed by him for his personal occupation. On the 31st October the appellant appeared before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and his statement was recorded. No action was however taken by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and on the 24th November the appellant wrote to that officer informing him that he had occupied the premises and that they should not be allotted to any other person. On the 7th December, 1955, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer made an order rejecting the appellants application that the premises be released in his favour, and by an order dated the 8th December he allotted the premises to the fourth respondent. Thereafter the appellant moved the Commissioner and the State Government for the reversal of the Rent Control and Eviction Officers order allotting the premises to the fourth respondent. These efforts were unsuccessful, and the appellant then filed a petition in this Court in which he challenged the validity of the order of allotment on a number of grounds. The learned Judge dismissed the petition and the appellant now appeals.

( 3 ) THE only contention advanced in this Court is that the order of allotment in favour of the fourth respondent is invalid as the Rent Control and Eviction Officer must make an allotment order within thirty days of the receipt of a notice by the landlord that the premises have fallen vacant, and that at the expiry of that period he ceases to have power to do so.

( 4 ) NOW, Section 7 (1) (a) of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act provides that a landlord shall, within seven days after any accommodation becomes vacant, give notice of the vacancy in writing to the District Magistrate. Sub-section (2) then provides that-" 7 (2 ). The District Magistrate may By general or special order require a landlord to let or not to let to any person any accommodation which is or has fallen vacant or is about to fall vacant. " rules 3 and 4 of the Control of Rent and Eviction Rules framed under Section 7 of the Act are also relevant. They read thus:

"3. Allotment order.--The District Magistrate shall make an allotment order within thirty days of the receipt of the intimation sent by the landlord under Section 7 (1) (a) of the Act and shall give notice-thereof to the landlord.

4. Landlords right to let.--If the landlord receives no notice from the District Magistrate within thirty days of the receipt by District Magistrate of the intimation given by the landlord under section 7 (1) (a) the landlord may nominate a tenant and the District Magistrate shall allot the accommodation to his nominee unless, for reasons to be recorded in writing he forthwith allots the accommodation to any other person. " the Rules came into force in 1949, and until very recently it appears not to have been doubted that? Rule 3 was directory in character. In two cases, however. Ram Narain Lal v. State of Uttar pradesh. W. P. No. 1437 of 1957, D/- 9-10-1958 (All) and Nawal Kishore v. Rent Control and eviction Officer, Bulandshahr, W. P. No. 2199 of 1957 D/- 17-10-58 (All), a learned Judge has held that where a landlord asks the District Magistrate to release in his (the landlords) favour premises which have fallen vacant Rule 4 has no application, and that under Rule 3 an allotment order must be made within thirty days of the intimation referred to therein, the District magistrate forfeiting his right to make an allotment