J.K. Tandon, J. - (1.) The subject matter of controversy in this petition is house No. 824 situate in Wingfield Park in the town of Lucknow. The Petitioner claims that he has been in occupation of this building as a tenant thereof since 1946. According to him the tenancy started in that year in his favour jointly with one Sri H.D. Saurashtri on a monthly rent of Rs. 31 40. In 1949, he goes on to state, he started a hosiery factory in it and invested large amounts over this business. On 27 -3 -1959, he and Sri Saurashtri were served with a notice purporting to be under Sec. 7A(1) of the UP (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, by the Rent Controller asking them to show cause why they should not be evicted within three days of the receipt of the notice. He then states that within the time allowed the necessary reply was furnished to the Rent Controller but on the 6th April, 1959 a further notice was given to him by the Rent Controller directing him to vacate the accommodation within two days. The proceedings resulting in the two notices sent by the Rent Controller appear to have been commenced at the instance of Ganga Prasad Dhyani, Respondent No. 3 who moved the Rent Controller saying that the Petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the accommodation. The Rent Controller apparently accepted his contention and also made an allotment order in his favour. When, however, Ganga Prasad was unable to take possession he caused these notices to be issued.
(2.) Once the notice under sub S. (2) of Sec. 7A had been given to the Petitioner to vacate the accommodation within two days he moved a petition in revision. The Commissioner accepted his revision, firstly, as he was not satisfied that there was a vacancy and secondly, because the Petitioner was in any case in occupation of the accommodation since 1954, therefore it was not a fit matter to be proceeded against under Sec. 7A. The order of the Rent Controller was thus set aside by him. The third Respondent then approached the State Government Under Sec. 7F which, however, has restored the order of Rent Controller. Hence the instant petition.
(3.) The State Government has not entered appearance. Respondent No. 3 alone has appeared in reply.;