SHIV DAYAL, J. - (1.)BY this petition under Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution, an order of allotment passed by the Authorised Officer, Jabalpur under section 39(2) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is challenged. The first contention is that the impugned order relates to "house No. 271, Madhatal, Jabalpur", while in fact the petitioner was dispossessed from his house No. 275/1, possession of which was given to Manoharlal Gupta (respondent No. 4, the allottee). On a perusal of the record of the Authorised Officer, we found that house No. 271, Madhatal, Jabalpur, was mentioned throughout. The petitioner filed objections before the Authorised Officer in which he stated that "house No. 271, Madhatal, Jabalpur" was in a dilapidated condition and that as soon as he would get the sale proceeds of house No. 273 (another house belonging to him, which he has sold to U. S. Tiwari), he would rebuild the house and then reside in it himself.
On January 19, 1974, the petitioner told us that he is the owner of the following houses: No. 272 in which U.S. Tiwari is the tenant; No. 272 /l in which Devaji Tailor is the tenant; No. 273 in respect of which the petitioner has entered into an agreement of sale with U. S. Tiwari and in the first floor of which he himself resides; - No. 274; No. 275; No. 275/1; No. 276 in which one Soni is the tenant; and No. 277.

(2.)HE stated before us that house No. 271 does not belong to him and he is not concerned with it, and that it was a mistake of the typist when in his objection filed before the Authorised Officer, he said that house No. 271 was in a dilapidated condition and he would rebuild it after selling his house No. 273. He stated before us that in fact he meant to say all that about house No. 275/1. He further admitted that in fact the house which has been allotted to M. L. Gupta (respondent No. 4) is house No. 275/1 and its possession has been given by the Collector to the allottee.
It is abundantly clear that the accommodation in respect of which proceedings were taken and allotment made and possession delivered to the allottee really bears No. 275/1, while the Authorised Officer was under the impression that its number was 271 and the petitioner also in his objection described the house as No. 271. However, inspite of the confusion or the mistake as regards the number of the house, the Authorised Officer as well as the petitioner, as also the allottee, were certain about the identity of the accommodation. We are, therefore, of the view that on that ground the proceedings are not vitiated and the first contention must be rejected.

(3.)THE second contention is that house No. 275/1 (which is the correct number of the accommodation in question) is exempt from the operation of section 39(2) of the Act, inasmuch as the last tenant who occupied it was Baijnath, paying monthly rent of Rs. 25. The petitioner's contention is that once an accommodation is let out to a tenant, it is the rent paid by him which determines the application of section 39(5). Learned Deputy Advocate -General contends that occupation by a tenant 7 years ago is of no consequence and cannot be taken into consideration for the purposes of section 39(5). His argument is that the section contemplates recent possession of a tenant, that is, soon before the order of allotment is made. He further argued that in such a case it is the rental value of the accommodation at the time of allottment which should be seen. Apart from all this, his last contention is that the house fell vacant when the petitioner himself having been in occupation, vacated it. We shall postpone consideration of this last contention for a while and first deal with the petitioner's contentions.