J.S. Trivedi, J. - (1.) The Plaintiff -Appellant filed the suit for an injunction restraining the Defendant from demolishing the shop and from interfering with his possession as a tenant. According to the Plaintiff, the shop in suit was originally in the occupation of one Ramesh Chand who, by his letter dated 1 -4 -1966, intimated the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that he would be vacating the shop within a week. It is further stated that on 5 -4 -66 the inspector made the report that the shop was vacant and consequently the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 11 -4 -66 allotted the shop to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff further stated that he was given peaceful possession by the landlord Respondent on 13 -4 -66 and the rent was agreed at Rs. 50/ - per month, but, subsequently, the Defendant -Respondents became greedy and wanted to increase the rent to Rs. 200/ - per month on the refusal of the Plaintiff to pay the aforesaid increased rent, the Defendant -Respondents have begun to demolish the shop, hence the suit.
(2.) The suit was contested by the Defendant -Respondents who are admittedly the landlords of the premises in suit. According to them, the allotment order was the result of fraud and misrepresentation and was subsequently cancelled by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. It was also stated that possession of the shop in dispute was never taken by the Plaintiff and that the shop being in a dilapidated condition, required to be demolished and the roof of the shop was already demolished.
(3.) The trial court decreed the Plaintiff's suit holding that the cancellation of the allotment order by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was unjustified and that the Plaintiff was in possession on the basis of a valid allotment order. The trial court further directed that the shop be re -roofed within a period of two months. The lower appellate court allowed the appeal with the result that the suit of the Plaintiff stood dismissed, hence this second civil appeal. Two points have been urged by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. His first contention is that the lower appellate court has gone wrong in holding that the civil court has no jurisdiction to see if the ingredients of fraud were proved or not.;