- (1.) This second appeal and the contended two civil revisions arise out of the following facts :- The disputed house is situated in Mohalla Tambacoo Walan, Moradabad. Syed Mahmood Hussain is admittedly the owner of this house. This house, according to the plaintiff Abdul Rashid Ansari, was in the tenancy of Akhlaq Ahmad. After Akhlaq Ahmad vacated this house, it was allotted in the name of Abdul Rashid Ansari, but before Abdul Rashid Ansari entered the house, a Kothri of the house was wrongfully occupied by the Syed Mahmood Hussain who put some furniture therein and the other portion was wrongfully occupied by Mohammed Umar, a relation of Syed Mahmood Hussain. The allotment order in favour of Abdul Rashid Ansari was passed on 8.6.1962. Thereupon, Abdul Rashid Ansari plaintiff filed an application for the removal of the unauthorised occupation by Sued Mahmood Hussain and Mohammad Umar as provided under Section 7 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This application was allowed and against this order, Mohammad Umar filed a revision on 4.9.1962. It was dismissed in default. It was restored on 7.9.1962. Thereupon the landlord made an application on 12.9.1962 that he should also be added as a party in the revision. In this revision, Abdul Rashid Ansari was made a party but it is contended that the plaintiff could not put in appearance as no notice had been given to him. This revision was allowed on 19.1.1963. While allowing the revision-application and ordering the remand the Commissioner observed that as a portion of the accommodation was in the possession of the landlord himself, therefore, the allotment was defective and illegal as no compliance of Section 7 of the Act had been made. Earlier the plaintiff had taken possession over the house on the strength of the order passed by the District Magistrate on his application under Section 7-F of the Act. The possession over the house was taken by the plaintiff on 8.9.1962. On 3.2.1965, the allotment order in favour of the plaintiff was set aside. A writ petition was filed for restoration of the possession by Syed Mahmood Hussain and Mohammad Umar. In this writ petition, the question as to whether the restitution could be claimed was referred to a larger Bench. The larger Bench decided this question in the affirmative. The writ petition was then decided.
(2.) The plaintiff then filed the present suit that he was not liable to be ejected from the premises as it had been validly and legally allotted to him.
(3.) This suit was dismissed by the trial Court holding that the allotment in favour of the plaintiff was not a legal and valid allotment. The plaintiff then filed an appeal. This appeal was also dismissed by the lower appellate Court who agreed with the finding of the trial Court that allotment in favour of the plaintiff was not valid. The lower appellate Court also held that the claim made by the plaintiff was barred by the principle of res judicata also being dissatisfied, the plaintiff has filed this second appeal.;