H.N. Tilhari, J.-- This writ petition has been preferred by an allottee in whose favour accommodation No. 307 (bearing new No. 3/3/45) situate in mohalla Thathrahiya Dilli Darwaja, Faizabad, had been allotted by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer, vide order of allotment dated June 16, 1986. The facts of the case in brief are that in respect of House No. 307 (New No. 3/3/45) situate in mohalla Thathrahiya Dilli Darwaja, Faizabad which belongs to Mandir Ram Janki and which is under the management of opposite-party No. 3 to the writ petition, on the death of one Ram Das (issueless) who was a tenant thereof, the vacancy did occur and upon the occurrence of vacancy the petitioner Lal Chand moved an application for the allotment of that house. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer called for a report from the Rent Control Inspector about the vacancy and the Rent Control Inspector, submitted his report and did report that the house mentioned above was an old one and was subject to the provisions of, U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972). It belonged to Mandir Ram Janki, Nazar Bagh, Ayodhya and that its Manager was one Chhedi Lal. It was also reported to the Rent Control & Eviction Officer that one Ram Das who was tenant has died 2 ½ years earlier or prior to the date of the report being made. Since after the death of Ram Das, the original tenant thereof, one Shiv Prasad is in possession of that accommodation and Shiv Prasad has stated and has told the Inspector that he is tenant of the house on a monthly rental of Rs. 25/-. The Inspector further reported that Shri Shiv Prasad stated that papers relating to his lease or the tenancy or writings relating there to all are with his counsel. In paragraph 4 of the report the Inspector has given the details of the accommodation. The report is dated 28-1-83, which has been annexed as Annexure C 3 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2 in this case. After receipt of the Inspector's report the Rent Control and Eviction Officer issued notice to persons concerned including Shri Shiv Prasad opposite party No. 2. Shri Shiv Prasad is the person who has been found in occupation at the time of inspection by the Rent Control Inspector and has been reported to have stated and to have claimed himself to be tenant in occupation of the said house as a tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 25/-. Shri Shiv Prasad, Opposite party No. 2, filed objections in writing to the Inspector's report, and Chhedi Lal the Manager of Mandir Ram Janki, Ayodhya also filed objections. In the objections it was asserted and claimed that the house in dispute was covered by the provisions of act no. xiii of 72. This has been the common plea in the objections of Shri Shiv Prasad as well as Chhedi Lal. It was further asserted that the accommodation in dispute or the house in dispute was not vacant as Shri Shiv Prasad was inoccupation thereof as a tenant since 1981. Shri Shiv Prasad in his objection stated that the tenant Ram Das was the Phoopha (husband of the father's sister) of Shiv Prasad. He further asserted that the original tenant of the accommodation was Shriram, the uncle of the objector Shri Shiv Prasad and Ram Das, the Phoopha of the objector as he has no family of his own neither he had any children so he used to dine and reside with the family members of the objector even after the death of Shriram. The keys has been with the objector and he has been using the accommodation for residential purposes as well as for carrying on dairy business and the accommodation is in his use and occupation as a tenant and he it continuously paying the rent thereof to the landlord. Therefore, as there is no vacancy there is no question of the accommodation being allotted in favour of Lal Chand or any one. In paragraph 10 of the objection the opposite party No. 2 has stated that to avoid any controversy the applicant objector has already moved an application for allotment of the accommodation and if the accommodation in dispute is treated to be vacant the same may be allotted in his favour or the objector, namely, Shri Shiv Prasad. A copy of the objection of Shri Shiv Prasad has been annexed as Annexure C1, to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of opposite-party No. 2. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer rejected the objection filed by opposite-party No. 2 declaring the house in dispute to be vacant vide his order dated 7-5-86 and allotted the accommodation in dispute in favour of Lal Chand petitioner by order dated 16-6-86, a copy of which has been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure-1, to the writ petition. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer did not consider the request of opposite-party No. 2 for allotment which request had been made in paragraph 10 of his objection which opposite-party No. 2 had filed on receipt of notice in the matter of declaration of vacancy and allotment application. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Rent Control & Eviction Officer dated 16-6-86 opposite-party No. 2 Shri Shiv Prasad the person inoccupation of the house in dispute and who claimed himself to be a tenant but without any order of allotment in his favour, filed revision under section 18 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 72 in July, 1986 i.e. Revision No. 133 of 1986 Shiv Prasad Vs. Lal Chand & another. Learned District Judge, Faizabad (Shri Tej Shanker) after having considered the matter and the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties allowed the revision of the present opposite-party No. 2 in part and to this extent that the order of allotment passed by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer was set aside by the learned District Judge, Faizabad, and the case was remanded to the Rent Control & Eviction Officer with the direction that the Rent Control & Eviction Officer shall consider the claim of all the claimants for the house in question and then make an order of allotment, vide judgment and order dated 15-4-88, annexed as annexure 2 to the writ petition. 2. Notice of this petition having been issued to the parties and served through Dasti notice on the opposite parties. Counter-affidavit had been filed by opposite-party No. 2 Shri Shiv Prasad. Rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed in reply to the counter-affidavit of opposite-party No. 2. A supplementary counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of opposite-party No. 2 and the same has been taken on record. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that there is no dispute about the accommodation in dispute belonged to Mandir Ram Janki and is under the management of opposite-party No. 3 but it is denied that there is any vacancy in the aforesaid house in the eye of law. It has further been asserted that opposite-party No. 2 has been rending in the house in dispute alongwith Shri Ram Das for a long time prior to his death and during his life time a fresh tenancy was entered into by opposite-party No. 2 with the consenr of landlord. It was also asserted in paragraph 5 that the petitioner was one of the prospective allottee with respect to the premises in question. However, the vacancy was not admitted by opposite-party No. 2 and he filed detailed objections in trial court and that in paragraph 10 of the same the opposite-party No. 2 stated that if the court comes to the conclusion that there is vacancy then the said house may be allotted to opposite-party No. 2 and that after remand the opposite-party No. 2 had moved an application (sic) form for allotment of the premises in question. Opposite-party No. 2 has annexed copy of his objection as annexure-C1 and copy of application for allotment as annexure-C2 to the counter-affidavit. Opposite-party No. 2 in paragraph 9 has stated that the Rent Control & Eviction Officer had not acted according to law in passing or in issuing the allotment order in favour of petitioner without applying his mind as well as without considering the prayer made by the answering opposite-party No. 2 for allotment of the premises in his favour i.e. in favour of opposite party No. 2 which prayer has been contained in paragraph 10 of the objection. Opposite-party No. 2 has taken the further stand as there were more than one applicant for allotment which was incumbent on the Rent Control & Eviction Officer to have considered the case of every applicant for allotment before passing the order, and, as such, the order of allotment passed in favour of Lal Chand was bad and, therefore, the revisional court acted in accordance with law and had been justified in allowing the revision of the answering opposite-party No. 2 in remanding the case to the Rent Control & Eviction Officer for consideration afresh after having set aside the order of allotment which had been passed in favour of the petitioner. As mentioned earlier the petitioner has filed the rejoinder-affidavit and has asserted that opposite-party No. 2 has been an unauthorised occupant of the accommodation and he had no right to remain in the same, particularly, when there had been no order of allotment in his favour. The petitioner has further asserted that enquiries made from the office of Rent Control & Eviction Officer disclosed that no application had been moved by Shiv Prasad prior to the date of allotment order or prior to the date of decision of Case No. 6 of 83 and the application for allotment has really been moved on 10-8-88 and the said application has been moved as an after-thought. The parties in their affidavits have challenged the question of bonafide need or requirement of either as regards the accommodation in dispute. In the supplementary affidavit the opposite-party No. 2 has tried to bring on record some alleged subsequent acquisition of accommodation by the petitioner. The question of bonafide requirement of accommodation by either is not a question to be considered by this court at this stage. 3. I have heard Shri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Shri I.D. Shukla, Advocate and Shri Vijai Krishna Srivastava, counsel for the opposite-parties at great length. I have gone through the record of the case. Shri S. K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before me that opposite-party No. 2 had not moved any application for allotment prior to the passing of the allotment order in favour of the present petitioner i.e. no application for allotment had been moved by Shri Shiv Prasad, the sitting tenant who was occupying it without any allotment in his favour. Shri Mehrotra submitted that occupation of accommodation in question by Shiv Prasad without an allotment order in his favour was unauthorised one in view of section 11, 12 and 13 of the Act, and, as such, the accommodation was in the eye of law vacant and the District Magistrate/Rent Control & Eviction Officer was competent to make allotment order. He further submitted that as no application for allotment had been moved by Shri Shiv Prasad-opposite party No. 2 there was no occasion for the Rent Control & Eviction Officer to consider the question of allotment of accommodation in dispute in favour of the present opposite-party No. 2 Shiv Prasad and so it did not commit any error of law or jurisdiction and, therefore, the District Judge, acted in excess of jurisdiction in allowing the revision and remanded the case. He submitted that under section 16 of the Act there is power vested in the Rent Control & Eviction Officer to make allotment and under section 41 of the Act the power had been given to the government to frame rules necessary and required for the purpose of carrying out the objects and purpose of the Act and the Rules in this regard had been framed and, as such, rules have got to be followed. Shri Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to rule 10 of u.p. urban buildings (regulation of letting, rent & eviction) rules, 1972 and in, particular laid emphasis on sub rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Rules framed under there the Act. He submitted that until an application for allotment in Form A has been made, it is not open to the authority concerned to proceed with the matter of allotment in favour of a person and he added that application for allotment has got to be moved in the prescribed form and if it is not made in the prescribed form it is liable to be rejected. Shri Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Rule 10 of the Rules is mandatory and in support of his contention Shri S.K. Mehrotra referred to a decision of this Court in the case of Jairaj Singh Vs. District Magistrate & others reported in (1979 Rent Control Cases 20) also reported in (1979 AWC 45 and 1979 ALJ 18). He had also made a reference to the decision of this Court in Upkar Singh Vs. District Judge & orders reported in (1978 (2) U.P. Supplementary Rent Control Cases 491). Shri Mehrotra has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Mitra Sen Yadav Vs. V Additional District Judge, Faizabad reported in (1985 (2) ARC 158). Shri Mehrotra in support of his contention further referred to the observations made in the case of M/s Sherwani Sugar Syndicate Vs. V Additional District Judge, Etah & others reported in (1978 ARC 503) to lay great emphasis that an order for allotment of an accommodation can be made only on an application being made by a person and the order of allotment cannot be made suo motu by Rent Control & Eviction Officer in favour of a person not an applicant for allotment. 4. On behalf of opposite-parties Shri Vijai Krishna Srivastava submitted that the prayer in paragraph 10 had been made for the allotment of that very house, for the allotment of which the application had been moved by the petitioner. He had submitted that earlier in 1983 as well an application had been made though no copy is available. He further submitted that even for a moment the opposite-party No. 2's application was not available allegations of paragraph 10 of the objection could be taken into consideration as a prayer seeking allotment of that very house and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer ought to have considered the case of the answering opposite-party No. 2 for the allotment if there was any vacancy in his opinion otherwise there was no vacancy as the accommodation in dispute has been in his (Shiv Prasad-opposite-party No. 2) use and occupation since long though admittedly there was no allotment order in favour of opposite-party No. 2. Shri Srivastava further submitted that if there was any technical defect and for that technical defect the prayer contained in paragraph 10 of the objection (Annexure-C1) could not be considered as application the Rent Control & Eviction Officer should have given an opportunity to present opposite-party No. 2 to remove the defect and to have given opportunity to place his case for allotment keeping in view the allegations of paragraph 10 of the objection (Annexure-C1 to the counter-affidavit). Shri Srivastava submitted that rules of procedure are meant for the purpose of substantiating the cause of justice and not to mar or obstruct its procedure as well as not to deprive the citizens of his right to place his claim before the authorities concerned nor could his claim be deprived from being considered by the authorities concerned but instead of giving any opportunity to the answering opposite-party the Rent Control & Eviction Officer ignored the claim of the answering opposite-party No. 2 and allotted the accommodation in dispute in favour of the petitioner that was jurisdictional error on the part of the authority concerned and, therefore, the learned District Judge did not commit any error of law or of jurisdiction in allowing the revision and in setting aside the order dated 16-8-86 and in remanding the case to Rent Control & Eviction Officer for considering the matter afresh on merits along with the claim of other claimants for allotment Sri Srivastava further submitted that as it was the case of opposite-party No. 2 that he had been running dairy farm since 1970-71 and has also been residing therein since then and even if there was no allotment order his possession was a valid one and it was regularised one under section 14 of the Act and there was no vacancy in the eye of law. This last contention of the learned counsel for opposite-party No. 2 was repelled by the learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that since after the death of Ram Das which had taken place sometime in 1981, opposite-party No. 2 is residing therein and using the same as a tenant and till his death Ram Das was a tenant so occupation of opposite-party No. 2 after death of Ram Das without an allotment order was unauthorised one and so there was a vacancy and there is no question of the same being regularised or deemed to have been regularised under section 14 of the Act. 5. I have given my due consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. As regards the last contention regarding vacancy there is no doubt no force in the contention of Shri Vijai Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite-party No. 2. In view of provisions of sections 11 and 13 of the Act, as has been laid down by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Nutan Kumar Vs. Additional District Judge, Banda (1993 (11) LCD 1027) an agreement of lease between landlord and tenant for letting and occupation of a building in contravention of the provisions of U.P. Act XIII of 72 is void. Section 11 of the Act imposes prohibition or restriction against letting out of an accommodation without an allotment order. Section 13 of the Act provides and places restriction on occupation of the building without allotment order. A joint reading of section 11 and 13 of the Act imposes prohibition on letting out without allotment order. Section 11 of the Act placed restriction on occupation without allotment or release. These two sections are required to be read together. When these two sections are read together it leads to one conclusion that neither can the landlord let out a premises without allotment order or can any one occupy it. Letting or occupation otherwise than an allotment order after the commencement of the Act is totally forbidden by law and, as such, the letting or occupation of a building in contravention of provisions of sections 11 and 13 of the Act i.e. without an allotment order or release will be void. An agreement offending a statute or a public policy or forbidden by law is ordinarily void and invalid from nativity, subject to those exceptional cases where the law expressly makes a provision regularising or revalidating the same as the cases covered by section 14 of the Act. Section 14 of the Act will not be available to opposite-party No. 2 nor can any benefit or protection thereof be available by opposite-party No. 2 as the umbrella of protection of section 14 of the Act will be available to a tenant or licensee in occupation of the building or accommodation on the specified date referred to in that section i.e. the date of commencement of U.P. Act No. 28 of 76, if every conditions mentioned therein are shown to exist i.e. his occupation is with the consent of the landlord and no proceedings for his eviction had been going on, on the date of such commencement or immediately earlier thereto. As regards the present case the possession of opposite-party No. 2 as a tenant did commence since 1981 so even if other conditions are there but the basic and fundamental condition for application of section 14 of the Act does not exist in this case as regards opposite-party No. 2. So the occupation of the house by opposite-party No. 2 without an allotment order since 1981, after the death of Ram Das had been unauthorised one in view of section 13 of the Act and the occupation of opposite-party No. 2 being unauthorised one or being void in the eye of law there had been a vacancy on the material date. As such, the contention of the learned counsel for opposite-party No. 2 on this ground is rejected. 6. As regards the question of allotment, it is no doubt correct as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that except for the request a claim for allotment being made in favour of opposite-party no. 2 in case the rent control authorities assume and hold the house to be vacant, had been made in paragraph 10 of his objection (annexure—1) prior to the date of passing of the allotment order in favour of the petitioner and no application appears to have been made out though there is an assertion on the affidavit that it was so made but as no copy of the same has been annexed, it appears either the application had been made and lost or no application had been made separately for allotment. Even if there had been no separate application the opposite-party No. 2 in paragraph 10 had, no doubt, made a prayer and request for the accommodation in dispute being allotted in his favour. Technically speaking that application might not have been in the form prescribed as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The question for consideration is whether it was open to the Rent Control & Eviction Officer to ignore that claim or to pass the order of allotment in favour of opposite-party No. 2 or there was some via-media in between the two. Was it not the duty of the Rent Control & Eviction Officer, particularly, in view of allegations of paragraph 10 of the objection to have required the opposite-party No. 2 to move some application in the prescribed form within a certain time which the rent control authorities could have provided. These are the moot questions and have got to be decided in the light of Rule 10 of the Rules. 7. Section 16 of the Act confers the power on the District Magistrate to pass an order of allotment i.e. the order requiring the landlord to let out a building which is or has fallen vacant or is about to fall vacant or a part of that building to a person specified in the order which has been described in the Act itself by the legislature an allotment order. A reading of section 16 (1) of the Act shows that by issuing an allotment order the District Magistrate requires the landlord to let out- i.e. to enter into contract of lease and to hand over possession of the accommodation or of the building or part thereof to the person specified. The order by itself does not authorise the allottee to himself enter into the house by taking law into his own hands instead it is a direction issued to landlord to enter into a contract of lease and to hand over possession to the allottee. Clause (b) confers power of release. Clause (b) of section 16 of the Act is not material for the purpose of instant case. Under section 41 of the Act the State Government has been given power to frame rules for the effective and proper working of the provisions of the Act with an idea that this may go on smoothly without causing any injustice to any person and with the object of carrying out the purpose of the Act. It is to be noted that the present Act is a social welfare legislation and has got to be interpreted in a manner to best serve the cause of social justice to the people. Rule 10 of the Rules framed under the Act provides procedure for allotment under section 16 (1) (a) of the Act. It is well settled principle of law as to construction of procedural law that the statutes relating to remedies and procedure must receive liberal construction specially so as to secure more effective, speedier, a smooth and less expensive administration of law (See Byram Pestonji Gariwala Vs. Union Bank of India : 1992 (1) SCC 31 para 29, see also Crawford's Statutory Construction Paragraph 254. Crawford in his work Construction of Statute observed as under : "Statutes which relate to remedies and procedure because they are remedial in character should also receive liberal construction in order to promote justice and to carry out their respective purpose and specially so as to secure more effective, speedier, a smooth and a less expensive administration of law." 8. Keeping this principle in view I have to consider, interpret and take note of the provisions of Rule 10 of the Rules. Rule 10 of the Rules is no doubt in the mandatory form and it requires that an application for allotment has to be made and it provides the form thereof that it should be in Form A. A reading of the said rule shows that moving of application is an essential and necessary ingredient and is sine qua non for proceeding to take steps in the matter of allotment and unless an application for allotment is moved before the Rent Control & Eviction Officer by a person it may be said that he has no jurisdiction to proceed to make allotment in favour of a person not moving the application. The law has also prescribed a form that is given in the Act as Form-A. Form-A indicates the necessary particulars to be supplied which may be required to be considered while going into the question whether allotment could be made in favour of a particular person or not, so those particulars and information have got to be supplied. In the case of M/s Sherwani Sugar Syndicate Vs. V Additional District Judge, Etah (1978 ARC 503) this court has taken the view as under :— "It would be seen from the review of the provisions of U.P. Act XIII of 72 and the Rules framed thereunder that an order cannot be passed suo motu by Rent Control and Eviction Officer in favour of a person not an applicant for allotment. An order can be made only on an application made by him." The purpose of Rule 10 is that notice of the said application may be had by the landlord as well as by other co-claimants for allotment and that they may have their say in the matter of allotment. 9. That being the position, the moving of application for allotment making a request that the accommodation in question (a specified accommodation) be allowed in favour of the person claiming allotment. The expression "application" used in Rule 10 means the act of making a request for something i.e. putting a request before a certain person. In Blacks' Law Dictionary the expression "application" has been defined at page 90 thereof as under :— “Application,—A putting to, placing before, preferring a request or petition to or before a person. The act of making a request for something. A petition. The use or disposition made of a thing." 10. Thus in the wider sense a term, a request or an act of making a request before someone for something which he is authorised to grant or give is an application. Considering in this light the request that had been made in paragraph 10 of Annexure-C1 i.e. objection to the question of vacancy in itself contained an application with a prayer for allotment in favour of opposite-party No. 2 and could be treated as an application moved by opposite-party No. 2 for allotment though it was not in the form prescribed and it might be lacking in material particulars. Thus, it cannot be said that there was no application of opposite-party No. 2 seeking allotment in his favour. No doubt, the application was an irregular one at the most but on the ground of irregularity the same could not be ignored and the claim of opposite-party could not be rejected simply on the ground that it was not in the prescribed form. As I have said earlier that though Rule 10 is mandatory and it is mandatory to the effect that application has to be moved the application having been moved if it lack or it suffers from deficiency as to the form that was irregularity which could be cured by calling upon the applicant who makes an application which is not in the prescribed form or which is irregular because of some technical defects to remove those defects and to bring that application into proper form before considering . the question of allotment. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer ought to have done so and granted some time to opposite-party No. 2 to mend the same or the present application in proper form and in case he had failed to comply with the same then definitely the Rent Control & Eviction Officer could say that necessary particulars not having been supplied inspite of time 'having been granted to make good the deficiency regarding particulars contained in Form-A, the claim for allotment is rejected but this has not been done in the present case instead the Rent Control & Eviction' Officer had ignored the claim of the, opposite-party, No. 2 altogether. There is no doubt that it is well settled principle of law that even a person who is in occupation of accommodation without an allotment order cannot be refused 'consideration of his prayer for allotment simply on the ground that he is in possession of 'the accommodation in question without an allotment order. He is also entitled to move application for allotment and he is also entitled to get his claim for allotment considered. This being the position, in .the present case the learned .District Judge, in my opinion, acted in accordance with law when he considered the act of Rent Control & Eviction Officer in ignoring to consider the claim of opposite-party for allotment to be an act of failure to exercise of jurisdiction vested in the Rent Control & Eviction Officer in the matter of allotment as well as the act of allotting the accommodation to petitioner without considering the claim of others to be an act amounting to illegality and illegal exercise of jurisdiction by Rent Control & Eviction Officer and that a case under section 18 of the Act was made out for exercise of revisional jurisdiction and for interfering with the order dated 16-8-86 and, as such, in my opinion, the learned District Judge acted within his jurisdiction in allowing the revision and setting aside the allotment order as well as remanding the case to the Rent Control & Eviction Officer for deciding the matter of allotment afresh, after taking into consideration the claim of all the claimants for allotment. I am of the view that if applications are not in prescribed Form-A and there is some deficiency regarding particulars or information’s, it is the duty of the Rent Control & Eviction Officer to call upon the claimant for allotment to supply the deficiency and thereafter consider the matter but if the party inspite of time being given does not remove the defect and supply the deficiency then in that case on that ground his claim may be rejected and it has not to be rejected at the first instance simply that application is not in Form-A. The defect of form may be an irregularity that can be cured. When I so take the view of I find support from the decision of this Court in the case of Mitrasen Yadav Vs. V Additional District judge, Faizabad & others (1985 (2) ARC 158). The material observation in that case reads as under :— "It is not disputed that in the present case when the opposite-party No. 3 had filed the allotment application, the Prescribed Authority had not pointed out any defect in his application while registering it. The defects in allotment application, if any, should have been pointed out to the applicant by the concerned authority prior to its registration so that the same could be removed but if the defects were not brought to the notice of the applicant and the application was registered, the same cannot be thrown out being defective without bringing those defects to the notice of the applicant to remove those defects and correct the error, if any. In taking this view I feel fortified by the view expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Udai Bhan Gupta Vs. Hari Shankar Bansal and others : 1984 SC 1968: 1983(1) All. RC 711 (SC) wherein appellant had filed a revision in High Court which was timebarred but the defect was not pointed out to the appellant by the Registry of the High Court while registering the revision. The revision was rejected by the High Court being barred by limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and the matter was remitted to the High Court permitting the appellant to move an appropriate application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay because that defect was not pointed out to the applicant by the Registry of the High Court while registering the revision. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that : "Whenever an appeal or a revision petition is filed in the Registry of the High Court the defects have to be pointed out and if the revision petition filed by the appellant is barred by limitation, the Registry ought to point out the defect which would prompt the appellant to seek condonation of delay." Thus in view of the above, l am of opinion that the Prescribed Authority or the concerned official registering the application for allotment should have brought to the notice of the applicant about the omission, if any, in filling up any particular column of the application form or in not giving any detailed information in respect of any matter so as to prompt him to remove such defects, if any. In my opinion, any such defects could be removed not only at the time of registration of the application for allotment but also even subsequently because there appears to be no legal bar in the removal of such defect subsequently by amending the application and providing information with regard to the required particulars in any column of the application form, specially when such defects were not pointed out at the time of registration of the application." 11. Thus considered, in my opinion, the writ petition has got no force as the order of the District Judge, does not suffer from either any error of law or of jurisdiction instead the order impugned appears to be a step in the process of doing justice to the parties. As regards merits of the claim of respective parties for allotment that has to be considered by the District Magistrate or Rent Control Authorities. 12. Thus considered, the petition is hereby dismissed. Costs, of this petition are made easy. Petition dismissed. _____________