Hari Swarup, J. - (1.) Ram Chand Kohli and Ganga Sagar have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 30 -5 -1970 passed by the RC and EO -Cum -SDM Under Sec. 7(2) of the U.P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in favour of Ravindra Kumar Respondent No. 3 and the order of the State Government dated 6 -1 -1971 dismissing their revision filed Under Sec. 7F of the Act. Both the authorities found that the shop was actually not vacant and was in the possession of the Petitioners since long, but still they treated the premises as vacant by applying an assumed fiction of law for purposes of allotment Under Sec. 7(2) of the Act.
(2.) The State Government has, on the basis of the evidence in the case, recorded a finding that the premises were formerly in the tenancy of one Atma Ram Chaddha and after he left the accommodation in 1966 Ram Chand Kohli and Ganga Sagar became its tenants. There is, however, no finding that the tenancy of Atma Ram Chaddha was ever terminated in accordance with provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. It was not even the case of the opposite party that the tenancy of Atma Ram Chaddha has come to an end by any notice to quit or by delivery of possession to the landlord. Thus even if he left the accommodation in 1966, the tenancy could not have automatically come to an end so as to make the premises, in the eye of law, available for allotment. Alternatively also, on the finding of State Government that after 1966 Ram Chand Kohli and Ganga Sagar became the tenants of the accommodation, the premises could not be deemed in law to be vacant and could not be directed to be let out to any other person.
(3.) It is clear from the order of the State Government that the premises are in actual occupation of the Petitioners and that the Petitioners have been carrying on business in the shop in dispute since before 1952. On the facts found by the State Govt. the premises were in fact neither vacant nor likely to fall vacant. No order of allotment could, therefore, be passed by the RC and EO in favour of the opposite party No. 3 in respect of the premises in dispute.;