Kailash Prasad, J. - (1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a Writ of certiorari be issued quashing the order dated 28-4-1960 passed by the RC and EO, Varanasi and the order dated 10-6-1960 passed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division. A further relief in the nature of a writ of prohibition has been prayed directing opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 (Commissioner, Varanasi Division and Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi) not to enforce the aforesaid orders and dispossess the applicants.
(2.) The impugned orders were made in proceedings under Section 7A of the RC and EO Act. The dispute is about house No. D 53/ 94, Kamachha, in the city of Varanasi. The premises have been in the occupation of the Petitioner No. 1 as tenant thereof since 1955. Opposite party No. 3 is the landlord of the premises in question. Applicant No. l was transferred from Varanasi to Asansol. There is no material on the record from which the exact date of his transfer can be ascertained. It, however, appears that he was transferred either at the end of 1959 or early in January 1960. On 26-2-1960 the premises in dispute were allotted to opposite party No. 4. Applicant No. 2 is a relation of applicant No. 1. On 4-3-1960 notices were issued by the RC and EO in purported exercise of powers under Section 7A (i) of the UP (Temp.) RC&E Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to applicant No. 2 and one Satnaram Prasad who is not a party to these proceedings calling upon them to show cause why they should not be evicted. Upon the issue of these notices objections were filed by the present applicants- applicant No. l filed his objections on 25-3-60 and supplementary objections on 6 4-1960 and objections by applicant No. 2 were filed on 14-4-1960. It appears that Satnaram Prasad had come to occupy the house temporarily as a guest and he left the house soon after the service of notice upon him. He, therefore, did not file any objection. The objections of the applicants were dismissed by the RC and EO by his order dated 28-4-1960. By the name order he further directed applicant No. 2 and Satnaram Prasad to vacate the premises. The applicant No. 2 then filed a revision from that order and his revision was dismissed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division on June 10, 1960.
(3.) The contention of the Petitioners is that there has been no vacancy in respect of the premises in question and as such the RC and EO had no jurisdiction to allot the accommodation to opposite party No. 4 and that the applicant No. 2 being a Defendant of applicant No. 1 has a right to reside in the accommodation in question as there is no prohibition in law against relations of the tenant occupying the accommodation.;