Rent Control and Eviction : Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972/Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972-Section 12/Rules 8(2) and 9(3)-Declaration of vacancy of a building-Allotment to the tenants-By Authority without compliance of the provision of the Act and Rules and without fixing the rent-Rent not paid by the tenants-Declaration of vacancy not challenged by landlord then and there-Order of allotment challenged-Revisional Authority set aside the orders declaring vacancy and that of allotment-Writ Petition-Allowed by High Court on the ground that order declaring vacancy having not been challenged then and there, the same attained finality and it could not be challenged in subsequent revision against order of allotment-On appeal, held: The order notifying vacancy leading to final order of allotment can be challenged in a proceeding challenging final order, it being an order at preliminary stage in the process of passing of final order-Tenants directed to pay arrears of rent and future rent-Matter remanded to High Court-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Sections 97, 105 and Order XLIII Rule (1A). 'A' was the landlord of the building in question. Respondent No.1- tenant made application for declaration of vacancy and allotment of the suit building to him as a tenant u/s. 12 r/w. Section 16 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Inspector, without compliance with the requirements of Rule 8(2) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, submitted the report to the effect that the first floor of the building might be considered to be vacant u/s. 12 of the Act. As 'A' was out of India, her father filed objections that no part of the building was vacant and 'A' was entitled to the notice under the Act and the Rules. The Authority declared vacancy of the first floor as well as ground floor. This order u/s. 12 was not challenged by 'A' then and there. Authority further passed an order allotting the ground floor to respondent No. 1, but without fixing the presumptive rent. By another order, the Authority allotted the first floor in favour of respondent No. 2, in view of his urgent need as a Government official. In this case also rent was not fixed. Landlord challenged the orders of allotment in revision, which was allowed by the Revisional Authority holding that declaration of vacancy was patently erroneous, since as per the report of the Inspector, the ground floor was not vacant; and that even with regard to first floor, it could not be deemed that there was a vacancy in the face of the report; and that Rules 8(2) and 9(3) of the Rules were not complied with and hence question of allotment did not arise. Respondents 1 and 2 - allottees, filed Writ Petition wherein interim stay was granted by High Court. During pendency of the petition, 'A' sold the building to the present appellant. Appellant filed application for vacation of interim stay on the ground that Respondent No. 2 having been transferred, was no more entitled to continue as an allottee; and that the respondents were not entitled to the benefit of stay, having not paid any rent. In the meantime Authority cancelled the allotment made to respondent No. 2. High Court allowed the Writ Petition on the sole ground that the order declaring vacancy not having been challenged, then and there, the order had attained finality and the same could not be challenged in the subsequent revision against the order of allotment. Hence the present appeal. Division Bench of this Court doubting the correctness of the decision in Ganpat Roy and Ors. v. Addl. Distt. Magistrate and Ors., (1985) 2 SCC 307 referred the matter to larger Bench. Appellant also filed two interlocutory applications seeking direction to the respondents to pay the rent in arrears and for direction to respondents to vacate the building.