Bind Basni Prasad, J. - (1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus or alternatively for writs of certiorari and prohibition arising under the following circumstances:
(2.) The applicants are a firm of traders having their Head Office at Calcutta. They were the tenants of opposite party No. 1, the Maharajkumar of Vizianagram, in the premises bearing Municipal No. S17/328 situated at Station Road in Banaras Cantonment and in these premises they carried on the business of the sale of petrol. They had also an automobile servicing station in these premises. The tenancy started in 1938 when a lease for a term of five years was made in favour of the applicants by the Maharajkumar on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/-. There was an option of renewal in the deed of lease and such renewals, took place from time to time. The lease ended on the 31st May, 1951 and at that time the premises were held by the applicants on a monthly rent of Rs. 120/-. On the 21st April, 1951, the Maharajkumar served the applicants with a notice to quit. The applicants did not vacate the premises. The Maharajkumar then, applied to the District Magistrate of Banaras under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for permission to file a suit in the civil Court against the applicants for their eviction. The term "District Magistrate" is defined in Section 2 (d) of the Act. It includes an officer authorised by the District Magistrate to perform any of his functions under that Act. The applicants raised an objection before the District Magistrate to the grant of permission. Their contention was that the landlord wanted to "extort a fancy rent or fancy purchase money" from them. They alleged that the Maharajkumar was demanding Rs. 425/- per month as rent or alternatively a price of Rs. 75,000/- for the premises. The matter came up before the Additional District Magistrate and by his order, dated the 4th July 1951, he accorded permission to the Maharajkumar to sue the applicants for ejectment in the competent Court. Having obtained this permission the Maharajkumar instituted Suit No. 345 of 1951 before the City Munsif of Banaras for the eviction of the applicants. That suit is still pending. It is the permission granted by the Additional District Magistrate and the suit instituted by the Maharajkumar which have given rise to this petition. It is directed against the Maharajkumar of Vizianagram and the District Magistrate, the Additional District Magistrate and the City Munsif of Banaras. The reliefs claimed are that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued to the Additional District Magistrate directing him to withdraw his order granting permission to the Maharajkumar to file a suit for eviction, or alternatively that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued, quashing the order, dated the 4th July 1951, passed by the Additional District Magistrate and a writ in the nature of prohibition be issued to the Munsif, Banaras prohibiting him from proceeding further with Suit No. 345 of 1951. Further it is prayed that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued calling up the record of Suit No. 345 of 1951 and quashing the proceedings therein.
(3.) The grounds upon which the above reliefs are claimed fall broadly under two heads: Firstly, it is contended that the order, dated the 4th July 1951, passed by the Additional District Magistrate granting permission to the Maharajkumar to file the suit for eviction is bad in law for the following reasons: (a) That the order is arbitrary and mala fide. (b) That as the Additional District Magistrate did not act reasonably in granting permission to the Maharajkumar, there was, in the eye of law, no exercise of discretion. Secondly, it is contended that Section 3 of the Act is ultra vires for the following reasons: (a) because an absolute and arbitrary discretion has been vested in the District Magistrate; (b) because the provision as, to the permission by the District Magistrate is against the object of the Act; (c) because the provision as to permission by the District Magistrate contravenes Article 14 of the Constitution which provides for equality before law; and (d) because the provision as to the grant of permission by the District Magistrate delegates to him legislative power.;