H. Swarup, J.
1. Smt. Sukh Devi has filed this petition challenging the order of the State Government passed under Section 7-F of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as tine Act) by which the State Government allowed the revision filed by Puttan Lal Pandey, respondent No. 3, and cancelled the allotment order passed under Section 7 (2) of the Act directing the landlord to let out the accommodation in dispute to the petitioner Sink Sukh Devi.
2. The premises in dispute belonged to Ram Narain and Sheo Shankar. There was a sitting tenant by name Bhagwan Din. Puttan Lal alleged that the shop had been vacated by Bhagwan Din and he applied to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for an order under Section 7 (2) of the Act in his favour. On 14-9-1960, an allotment order in favour of Puttan Lal was passed. A suit was then filed by Bhagwan Din against Puttan Lal for an injunction to restrain Puttan Lal from occupying the accommodation in dispute in pursuance of the allotment order referred to above. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The appeals filed by the plaintiff in the first court as well as in this court were also dismissed. The second appeal was dismissed on December 14, 1966. The Court in that suit recorded the finding that the accommodation had fallen vacant as contemplated under Section 3 of the Act and as such the allotment order passed in favour of Puttan Lal was not illegal. Another suit was filed by the landlord against Bhagwan Din for his ejectment on the ground of illegal sub-letting. This suit ended in a compromise decree under which Bhagwan Din was to vacate the premises. Sukh Devi filed an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for allotment in her favour and the allotment order was passed in her favour on 24-4-1965. In the suit filed by Bhagwan Din he had alleged that he had taken Laxmi Narain only as a partner and hence the premises could not be deemed to have fallen vacant. The finding of the Court, however was that the partnership was fictitious and that Bhagwan Din had vacated the premises and allowed Laxmi Narain to come into possession without any authority of law. During the pendency of the suit there was also an interim injunction by which Puttan Lal had been restrained from enforcing the allotment order dated 14-9-1960 and from dislodging the plaintiff from the shop in dispute. After the suit finally ended with the dismissal of the second appeal. Puttan Lal filed an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for the cancellation of the allotment order dated 24-4-1965 passed in favour of Smt. Sukh Devi. The application was filed on the ground that the order was taken by Sukh Devi by concealment of relevant facts, viz. the existence of an earlier allotment order in favour of Puttan Lal and the pendency of the suit in which the interim iniunc-tion had been issued. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer dismissed the application as, according to him, the allotment order in favour of Sukh Devi had exhausted itself by her taking possession of the premises as a tenant. He accepted the plea of Sukh Devi that a lease had come into being in her favour on the basis of the allotment order and she had entered into possession on that basis. The State Government allowed the revision of Puttan Lal on the finding that Sukh Devi had not entered into possession and the possession still continued to be of her sons who had earlier taken possession illegally from Bhagwan Deen. On the basis of the circumstances mentioned ' in the order the State Government further found that Sukh Devi had knowledge of the previous proceedings and the same had been concealed from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and that if the facts had been brought before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the second allotment order in favour of the petitioner could not have been passed. On these findings the State Government passed the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised five points. First that no revision was maintainable against the order refusing to cancel an allotment order. Second that the allotment order in favour of Puttan Lal was illegal as there was no vacancy. Third, that as the previous allottee had not taken possession on the basis of the allotment order the Rent Control and Eviction Officer could make the second order in favour of the petitioner. Fourth that the finding recorded by the State Government that the petitioner had concealed the relevant facts is unwarranted, Fifth, that the State Government could not cancel the allotment order in favour of the petitioner as the same had exhausted itself.
4. Under Section 7-F a revision is maintainable against an order of allotment directing an accommodation to be let out to any person. When Puttan Lal applied for cancellation of the allotment order in favour of Sukh Devi he really challenged the order of allotment in her favour and the proceedings thus became amenable to the jurisdiction of the State Government. The State Government had jurisdiction to revise the order of allotment passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, and was within its jurisdiction when it cancelled the order of allotment in proceedings initiated by the revision filed by Puttan Lal.
5. After this Court and the subordinate Courts had held in the suit filed by Bhagwan Din that there was vacancy on the date the allotment order was passed in favour of Puttan Lal it has to be held that the allotment order in his favour was valid. From the order of the State Government also it appears that it has taken the earlier allotment order to be valid. Once the order of allotment in favour of Puttan Lal had validly been passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Section 7 (2) of the Act, he had no jurisdiction to pass the second allotment order unless the first had become inoperative. Puttan Lal was restrained by the order of the Civil Court not to take possession in pursuance to that order. In these circumstances it cannot be held that the first allotment order had become inoperative so as to confer jurisdiction on the rent Control and Eviction Officer to pass another allotment order without first cancelling the earlier order. The view taken by the State Government cannot be said to be erroneous in law.
6. The State Government has considered the facts and circumstances brought before it and on a consideration thereof it came to the conclusion that Sukh Devi had knowledge of the earlier events and she was guilty of concealment when she had applied for the allotment order. It was open to the State Government to draw the inference of concealment from the facts brought before it, and the finding cannot be said to be unwarranted or suffer from any manifest error of law.
7. The last point too has no force.
The State Government, on a consideration of the material before it has recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner never entered into possession in pursuance of the order of allotment. On this finding the State Government was right in treating the order of allotment in favour of the petitioner as open to challenge in revision. If Smt. Suckdevi had not entered into possession the allotment order could not be said to have exhausted itself so as to become unchallengeable in revision.
8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.