Hari Swarup, J. - (1.) FEELING aggrieved by an order of allotment, the two Appellants instituted a writ petition in this Court. The same having failed, they have come up in appeal.
(2.) THE first Appellant Smt. Amiya Devi is the landlady of the house in dispute. P.N. Biswas, Appellant No. 2 is a tenant in this house under an order of allotment dated 14th August, 1958. According to Biswas, some years back at the request of a neighbour, he temporarily gave a part of the house to L.R. Ghosh, Respondent No. 2. He was occupying two rooms on the ground floor and was sharing the common bathroom and the latrine. After some years on 21st May, 1962, Biswas gave notice to Ghosh that he was a licensee and asked him to vacate the premises. Ghosh, Respondent No. 2, applied before the Rent Control Officer for allotment of the portion which was in his possession. After considering the report of the Inspector, the Rent Control Officer on 2nd June, 1962, made on order of allotment of the portion in favour of Ghosh. It appears that the case of Ghosh was that he was in possession of the entire ground floor and also of the third storey. As such the order of allotment mentioned this as the accommodation to which it related. Having obtained this allotment order, Respondent No. 2 replied on 12th June, 1962, to Biswas Appellant intimating that he was a tenant under an order of allotment and was not liable to vacate the accommodation. Biswas thereupon filed an objection to the allotment order before the Rent Control Officer on 13th June, 1962. The landlady also filed objections on 16th June. 1962. The Rent Control Officer however dismissed them by his order dated 13th August 1962. The Rent Control Officer found: 1. that ever since the allotment of the house in 1958, Sri Biswas, the tenant, did not require the entire house and had allowed Mr. Ghosh to occupy the ground floor thereof; 2. that the tenant voluntarily gave possession of the ground floor to Sri Ghosh; 3. that of the last about four years two families had been residing in this house and so the accommodation was split up into two separate accommodations;
(3.) THAT the landlady never objected to the continuance of Sri Ghosh in the house during this period;;