R.S. Pathak, J. - (1.) By this petition the petitioner claims a writ in the nature of certiorari against the order of the State Govt. u/S. 7F of the UP (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. A shop, No. 536/1 in Mahoba fell vacant. The landlord Nathu Ram Tiwari, applied for release of the shop in his favour. He represented that he intended to run a Ghee business in the premises, and gave the assurance that if the business was not commenced within fifteen days, namely by Dussehra, he would have no objection if the shop was allotted to some one else. On September 21, 1965 the RC and EO made an order holding that the need of the landlord was genuine and directed that the shop should be released in favour of the landlord. He added the condition that in case the landlord failed to start the Ghee business within fifteen days the allotment order would be considered to be ineffective. It appears that some time later the RC and EO took proceedings to determine whether the Ghee business had been commenced by the landlord in the said shop, and after receiving a report from the police he made an order dated October 15, 1965 that as the business had not been started yet the order dated September 21, 1965 in favour of the landlord releasing the accommodation in his favour must be treated as ineffective. On the same date he made an order allotting the premises to the next applicant, Bhagwat Narain Shukla. The landlord then applied u/S. 7F of the Act to the State Govt. By its order dated September 5, 1969 the State Govt. held that in case the accommodation had not been put to the use for which the landlord had secured its release and it was decided to allot it again to some one else then it should have been announced that it was vacant. It also pointed out that no fresh allotment could be made in respect of the premises without notice to the landlord. Accordingly, the State Govt. allowed the application, and quashed the allotment order made in favour of Bhagwat Narain Shukla as being without jurisdiction. And now, Bhagwat Narain Shukla has filed the present petition against the order of the State Govt.
(2.) It seems to me clear that having regard to the circumstance that an order had already been made earlier releasing the accommodation in favour of the landlord the RC and EO had no jurisdiction to make a fresh allotment order without notice to the landlord. It is true that the landlord had represented that in case he did not commence the Ghee business in the shop within a specified period the shop could be allotted to any one else. It is also true that upon the report received from the police the RC and EO came to the view that the landlord had not commenced the Ghee business. But before he could act upon that report it was necessary for him to afford an opportunity to the landlord to be heard on the police report and to show whether in fact he had commenced the Ghee business within the stipulated period. Without extending that opportunity to the landlord the RC and EO committed a breach of the principles of natural justice.
(3.) It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that at the time when the matter was taken up and the report of the police was considered by the RC and EO, the counsel for the landlord was present. This allegation is denied in the counter -affidavit. There is oath against oath, and there is nothing on the record before me to tilt the balance in favour of the petitioner. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition must fail and is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.;