V.D. Bhargava, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution by three brothers who are the sons of Kuber Nath deceased. They are owners of a house No. 56/ 31 situate in Mohalla Govindpura, in the city of Varanasi.
(2.) ACCORDING to the Petitioners, they have all along been residing in the major portion of the accommodation, and it was only one room on the ground floor which had been let out, and it was let out to one Madho Prasad. The Petitioners themselves wanted to start business and, therefore, in early 1951 they made an application to the RC EO that as they required the room themselves, permission may be given to file a suit. The matter was considered by the RCEO and he granted the permission sought for by the Petitioners. At that stage Madho Prasad, the then tenant, filed objections and inter alia raised the plea that the landlords' need was not genuine. The objections of Madho Prasad were not accepted and the permission was granted on 20 -10 -51, and in pursuance of that permission, suit No. 52 of 1952 was filed in the court of the Munsif. The suit was contested in the court of the Munsif, but it was decreed on 17 -2 -53, and as requested by Madho Prasad he was granted two months' time to vacate the room. It is alleged in the petition that in spite of the fact that Madho Prasad had agreed to vacate the room, he filed an appeal in the court of the Civil Judge which was dismissed by him, on 8 -7 -53. This time Madho Prasad requested for six months time to vacate the room which was again granted. A second appeal was filed in this Court by the heirs of Madho Prasad, as it appears that since then Madho Prasad had died. That appeal remained pending here for about three years and it was ultimately dismissed and yet again two months' time was given to vacate. No further litigation could be carried on by Madho Prasad or his heirs, and, according to the petition, a contrivance was devised by the opposite parties 5 and 6 in order to keep the premises in their own possession and it was that they asked one Panna Lal Gupta, opposite party No. 4, to get an allotment in his favour, and, thereafter, the RCEO without any notice to the Petitioners allotted the premises before opposite parties Nos. 5 and 6, heirs of Madho Prasad actually vacated the premises.
(3.) WHEN allotment had been made, the Petitioners went to the RCEO and pointed out that their need was genuine and they had been given permission to file a suit on that score and that it was after a long drawn litigation for more than eight years that they were likely to get possession, they should not be deprived in that manner. Opposite parties Nos. 5 and 6 had delivered the key to opposite party No. 4 and the RCEO did not accept the contention of the Petitioners.;