S. D. Agarwala, J. - (1.) The property in dispute is house no. 10/431, Khalasi Lines, Kanpur, Dr. H N. Ray was the tenant of the said premises. Initially Shyam Sunder Narain Bhan was the owner and the landlord of the premises. He died on 21-2-1975 and thereafter the petitioner Ravindra Kumar Bhan became the owner and landlord of the premises after the death of his father. On 6th February 1978 Dr. H. N. Ray wrote to the petitioner his intention to vacate the said building. Dr. H. N. Ray also wrote a letter to the District Magistrate, Kanpur, that in view of his transfer to Culcutta he will be vacating this accommodation on 16th February 1978. Thereafter, after the receipt of the letter dated 6th February 1978 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed the Inspector to inquire and report. The inspector submitted a report that in the view of the transfer of Dr. H. N. Ray the property is likely to fall vacant. The property was thereafter allotted to opposite party no 3, S. William. On 17th February 1978 when actual vacancy of the accommodation took place the petitioner applied for the release of the accommodation as according to him it was required for his personal use. When he came to know that the property had already been allotted in favour of opposite party no. 2, he also moved an application under Section 16 sub-clause (5) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972, U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Act for setting aside the allotment order as according to him the allotment order was not made in accordance with clauses (a) and (b) of Section 16 of the Act. The review application was rejected on 6th March 1979. While rejecting the review application the City Magistrate Kanpur also made observations in regard to the need of the petitioner and held that he did not require the premises in dispute. Against the order dated 6th March 1979 the petitioner preferred a revision in the Court of the District Judge Kanpur. The revision was also dismissed by the VIIth Additional District Judge Kanpur by judgment dated 12th August 1980. The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 6th March 1979 and 12th August 1980 by means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that it was mandatory for the District Magistrate to have issued a notice to the petitioner intimating him the date on which the question of allotment was to be considered. Since no notice of the said date was sent to him the allotment order was wholly invalid and was not made in accordance with the rules framed under the Act. The second submission of the learned counsel is that it was not open to the City Magistrate to summarily reject the release application without first setting aside the order of allotment passed in favour of opposite party no, 3 and as such the impugned orders are manifestly erroneous. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. In my opinion the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are well founded. In the application for allotment made by opposite party no. 3 which is Annexure R. A. 19 to the petition the opposite party no. 3 have the name of the landlord as Shyam Sunder Narain Bhan Paper Mill Colony Lucknow. This was stated in the first application dated 9th January 1978. A second application was made for allotment of the premises on 28th January 1978. This application is Annexure R. A. 18. In this application also the name of the landlord has been given as Shyam Sunder Narain Bhan Paper Mill Colony, Lucknow. Annexure 5 to the counter affidavit is the notice which was issued to the landlord. In this notice no date has been given but presumably it must have been issued after 7th July 1978 when the Inspector had submitted his report. The notice is addressed to Shyam Sunder Narain Bhan 10/431, Khalasi Lines, Kanpur. The process server, who went to serve the notice had submitted his report which is Annexure 3 to the counter affidavit. In this report he stated that when he went to serve the notice he met Shyam Narain Bhan and Shyam Sunder Narain Bhan refused to accept the notice and as such the notice was affixed on the door. Admittedly Shyam Sunder Narain Bhan had died on 21st December 1975. The petitioner Ravindra Kumar Bhan was the sole landlord of the premises when the pro perty fell vacant. The notice of the proceedings which were taken was issued to Shyam Sunder Narain Bhan who had already died three years back. It is therefore, clear that the notice was issued to a dead person, The report of the process server, Annexure 3 is apparently false because the process server could not have met a person who was dead. All the proceedings, therefore, appear to be collusive and fabricated. Admittedly no notice was sent to the landlord Ravindra Kumar Bhan. In the circumstances there was clear non compliance of rule 9, sub-clause (3) of the Rules Since his provi sions is mandatory the allotment order issued in favour of opposite party No. 2 on 16th February 1978 is consequently illegal and void. After a release application has been moved by a landlord the question of allotment of premises would only arise when the release application moved by the landlord is rejected. The City Magistrate, therefore, could not have on the one hand held the allotment to be valid and thereafter made observa tions in regard to the release application. The procedure adopted by the City Magistrate was wholly illegal. On a reading of the release application as well as the order dated 16th March 1979 it is clear that the City Magistrate Kanpur, has not even cared to peruse the application for release. Every particular is mentioned in the release application which the City Magistrate thought to be lacking in the application. The release application has also not been properly considered and in fact the application has been misread by the City Magis trate. The revisional Court also did not apply its mind to this question as it simply accepted the finding given by the City Magistrate Kanpur though it was based on misreading of the application for release. It is not necessary for me to give any finding on this question. The question of release would have only arisen when the allotment order was set aside. The City Magistrate followed an illegal procedure by which it upheld the allotment order and thereafter made observation about the release application. The procedure to be adopted by the City Magistrate was first to set aside the allotment order and then to consider the release application independently. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 6th March 1979 and 12th August 1980 are quashed. The allotment orders in favour of opposite party no. 3 dated 16th February 1978 is also quashed. Since the landlord has already filed a release application on 17th February 1978 the authorities are directed to consider the rebase application afresh. In case, however ultimately the release application of the petitioner is not accepted then it will be open to the authorities to pass an allotment order in accordance with law. Parties shall, however, bear their own costs of this petition. .;