G.P. SINGH, J.

1. The petitioner is a firm and owns house No. 2344 situated in Wright Town, Jabalpur, which was purchased by it by registered sale-deed on 7th February, 1967. The firm consists of three partners, one of them being Vishnudatta Dubey. At the time of purchase, the house was in occupation of one Shri Narayanan, a Deputy Collector. Narayanan was thereafter transferred and as the house was likely to fall vacant, the petitioner intimated the fact to the Rent Controlling Authority and also claimed that the house should not be allotted to anyone, as it was needed by Vishnudatta, one of the partners of the petitioner firm for his own occupation because his son and brother were students studying in educational institutions at Jabalpur and they were living in a rented house, which was not suitable. The Rent Controlling Authority by its order passed on 19th June, 1967 allotted the house under section 39 (2) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 to Shri D.V. Singh, Deputy Director of Agriculture. He overruled the petitioner's objection to the allotment essentially on the ground that the need of one of the partners to occupy the house cannot be held to be a need of the firm which was the landlord of the house. The petitioner then filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of allotment made by the Rent Controlling Authority.

2. Section 39 of the Act deals with control of letting. Sub-section (1) enables the Collector or the Authorised Officer (who in the present case happened to be the Rent Controlling Authority) to require a landlord by general or special order to give information in writing when any accommodation has fallen vacant or is likely to fall vacant. Sub-section (2) empowers these Authorities to allot any accommodation which has fallen vacant or is likely to fall vacant in favour of a Government Officer. This power is subject to an important proviso which reads:-

"Provided that if the landlord has in the information given in pursuance of an order issued under sub-section (1) stated that he needs the accommodation for his own occupation the Collector or the Authorised Officer, shall, if satisfied after due enquiry that the accommodation is so needed, permit the landlord to occupy the same."

There are certain classes of accommodations which are taken out of the ambit of section 39 and they are enumerated in sub-section (5) which provides:–

"(5) Nothing in this section shall apply to –

(a) Any accommodation used for residential purposes the monthly rent of which does not exceed twenty five rupees;

(b) Any accommodation used for non-residential purposes the monthly rent of which does not exceed fifty rupees;

(c) Any accommodation which has fallen vacant in pursuance of an order passed under this Act for the purpose of occupation by the landlord;

(d) Any accommodation belonging to a local authority, Company or Firm and bona fide intended solely for the occupation of its officers, servants and agents."

3. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even if one of the partners of a firm, which is the landlord, needs the accommodation for his own occupation, the Collector or the Authorised Officer is bound to permit the landlord to occupy the same under the proviso to sub-section (2) and cannot allot it in favour of any Government Officer. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in case of plurality of landlords if the need be even of one of them the proviso is attracted. The argument of the learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, is that the need, to come within the proviso, must be of all the landlords and further if the house be owned by a firm, the need must be for the purpose of the firm. It is also argued with reference to sub-section (5) that in a case where a firm is the landlord, the accommodation can always be allotted under sub-section (2) unless it is intended solely for the o