S.S.Dhawan, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 220 of the constitution filed by Sri Bijoy Chandra Das directed against a letter written to him by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on behalf of the District Magistrate, Allahabad suggesting that he should make his bungalow in Tagore Town available for an Hon'ble Judge of this Court within a week of the receipt of this letter. In his affidavit the petitioner says that he is a retired professor of the Allahabad University aged about 62 years and the owner-Occupier of a house No. 41 Tagore Town, which was constructed by him in 1940. He built this house so that he and his wife in their old age could live in their own house. He alleges that he is a patient of heart trouble and his wife is suffering from a nervous breakdown and other ailments. He also says that he and his wife have been living in this house as soon as it was constructed and it has not remained unoccupied for a single day; he has never let out the house in past nor has he any intention of doing so in, future. The house is barely sufficient for his needs. The petitioner says that he has spent his entire savings in building this house and he and his wife have become attached to it. But to his utter surprise he received a letter from the District Magistrate alleging that his house had "remained practically unoccupied since a long time". The letter pointed out that "there was an acute dearth of accommodation in Allahabad and it was proposed to requisition the said bungalow for the residence of an Hon'ble judge of this Court. The letter assured the petitioner that he would be paid a "reasonable monthly compensation'' for the house. He was advised to appreciate the difficulties of the authorities "in providing accommodation to Government servants of higher status", and voluntarily to make it available for the use of the Hon'ble Judge within a week of this letter. The letter concluded with the warning that if the petitioner failed to make it available within week "it would be requisitioned under the U. P. Accommodation Requisition Act, 1947 ass amended up to date".
(2.) Aggrieved by this letter the petitioner has come to this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, he took the previous precaution of sending a reply to the letter in which he denied that the house had ever remained unoccupied.
(3.) I shall assume that all the allegations in the petitioner's letter are true that the house was constructed by him for his personal use, that he is living in it with his wife and that it is not vacant. Even if all this be true, it is difficult to see how any right of the petitioner has been infringed by this letter. It requests him to make the house available for the use of another person. Under the law it is open to the District Magistrate to make an informal suggestion of this sort to any owner. The letter certainly is not a direction under Section 7 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act directing the petitioner to let the house to the nominee of the District Magistrate. If it had been it would have been framed in the usual official form invoking the powers of the District Magistrate under that section. It is no more than a proposal which the petitioner is free to accept or reject. There is nothing illegal in the district authorities negotiating with the owner of a house for its lease.;