- (1.) THIS is a plaintiffs appeal from a concurrent decree of the dismissal of his suit for a declaration that he was a tenant of the defendant in the premises in suit
(2.) IT appears that northern part of the premises belonging to the defen dant was let by an order dated 26-10-1957 in the name of five persons. One of the five allottees Daulatram vacated the part of the premises occupied by him. The plaintiff Sajjan Singh thereupon made an application for allotment of the portion so vacated by Daulatram. This was op posed by defendant landlord Rameshwar Sahai. However, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed the necessary order on 31-8-1960 purporting to. make an allot ment in favour of the plaintiff limiting the period of occupancy to three months. It may be mentioned that the plaintiff had taken possession of the portion vacated by Daulatram much earlier in anticipation of the allotment. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer seems to have regularised that occupation to avoid inconvenience to the plaintiff in the rainy season if he were asked to vacate. The plaintiff was direct ed to find out some alternative accommo dation for himself. The plaintiff, however, did not vacate the accommodation occu pied by him on the expiry of three months and claimed that he was entitled to remain in possession as tenant. The landlord ap plied to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for release of the accommodation in his favour. By an order dated 2-8-1961 the Rent Control and Eviction Offi cer released the accommodation in favour of the landlord and rejected the applica tion of the plaintiff for a regular allotment. The plaintiff then instituted the suit giving rise to this appeal for a declaration that he was a tenant of the defendant in the accommodation in suit. The sole basis of the plaintiffs daim was the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 31-8- 1960. The learned Munsif who tried the suit held that by the said order, a copy of which was Ext. A-5 on secord, a right of tenancy was conferred on the plaintiff for a period of three months expiring on 31-11- 1960 and thereafter the plaintiff was merely in occu pation without any right and no declara tion as sought could be given in his favour. The learned Civil Judge on appeal by the plaintiff took the view that the order of me Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated .31-8-1960 was not really an allot ment order as contemplated under the law and the rules but merely amounted to a consent order permitting the plaintiff to continue occupation for a period of three months to avoid inconvenience to himself. The result was that the decree passed by the court of first instance was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed.
(3.) THE main ground in support of the appeal raised was that the order dated 81-8-1960 being a regular order of allot ment passed in favour of the plaintiff under Section 7 of the U. P. (Temporary) Con trol of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, the plaintiff acquired a right under the provi sions of that Act and the rules to remain in occupation of the accommodation allot ted till that right was determined or lapsed under the law. It was urged that the limi tation of three months put in the said o_rder of allotment being without jurisdic tion was not binding and deserved to be ignored.;