ORDER Tarun Agarwala, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the validity of the orders dated 10.10.1986 and 18.12.1986 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The petitioner is the landlord of the premises in question. This premises was in the possession of Sri Vinod Kumar. The petitioner moved an application for release of the shop under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground of bona fide need for his son. The prescribed authority allowed the application holding that the need of the petitioner was bona fide and genuine and released the premises in question by an order dated 5.8.1985. Subsequently, the petitioner was given possession of the shop in question by the tenant. The petitioner thereafter, carried out extensive repairs in the premises in question. Consequently, the shop remained locked and could not be used for business purpose.
2. It transpires that on the basis of an application of a prospective allottee the inspector submitted an ex parte report dated 4.2.1986 stating therein that the shop was found locked and that the shop had been released in favour of the landlord, but the same was not being used for , business purposes. The inspector recommended that a notice may be issued to the landlord to indicate as to whether he would be using the shop for his own purposes or would be Interested in letting out the shop. Consequently, notices were issued by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the landlord appeared and filed his objections stating therein that the shop had been released for the need of settling his son in the business and that the shop was required for that purpose. The petitioner further contended that since the shop required extensive repairs, the same was being carried out and after completion of the repairs, the petitioner's son will start the business. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by an order dated 10.10.1986 directed the petitioner not to make any alteration or repairs in the premises in question and subsequently, by an order dated 18.12.1986 declared the vacancy in the shop in question on the sole ground that the shop was not being used by the landlord.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
4. Heard Sri Om Prakash, the learned counsel holding the brief of Sri B. D. Mandhyan, senior advocate for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel on behalf of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. No one appeared on behalf of the prospective allottee.
5. In Sultan Ahmad v. Prescribed Authority, 1984 (1) ARC 283, it has been held that :
"It is settled law that if an application for release under Section 21 (1) of the Act is allowed the landlord is not called upon to obtain a further order of release from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer nor has the said officer any jurisdiction to allot the accommodation to any one else."
6. In Smt. Genda Devi v. District Judge, Ghaziabad and Ors., 1980 ARC 335, it has been held :
"Any order of allotment passed subsequent to the order passed by the prescribed authority by which the premises was released, the said allotment order was wholly illegal and was liable to be quashed."
7. The aforesaid judgments are fully applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case the premises was released in favour of the petitioner under Section 21 of the Act on 5.8.1985 and thereafter, the possession was given to the petitioner. Since the premises was released in favour of the petitioner, there existed no vacancy, and, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no jurisdiction to pass an order either restraining the petitioner from making any construction or alteration or declaring the vacancy in the premises in question, especially, when the landlord came forward and stated that he was getting the shop repaired to enable his son to start the business from the premises in question.
8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 10.l0.1986 restraining the petitioner from making any alteration or repairs in the shop in question as well as the order dated 18.12.1986 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declaring the vacancy in the premises in question are quashed. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.