Agarwala, J. - (1.) This is an application praying that the order of allotment of a shop situate in Mohalla Shahamatganj in the city of Bareilly, made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 12-9-1951, in favour of Krishna Kumar, opposite party 2, be quashed. The facts briefly stated are as follows : The shop in dispute is a tin shed with wooden structures. It is on a plot -of land which along with three other shops and a go-down is owned by several persons. Two of these co-sharers, viz., Naqshe Ali and Mashooq Ali were admittedly occupying the disputed shop and were carrying on Kirana business. It appears that they suspended their business sometime in July or August 1951. Several persons came forward to get an allotment of the shop in the expectation that Naqshe Ali and Mashooq Ali would vacate it. The first person to come forward was one Kalloomal. He made an application for allotment with the concurrence of Naqshe Ali and Mashooq Ali on 4-8-1951. On 21-8-1951, Lachman Das applicant applied for its allotment. On 24-8-1951 Lachman Das made a second application for allotment. On 27-8-1951 Krishna Kumar made a similar application. This application was made with the consent of Naqshe AH and Mashooq Ali.
(2.) On 28-8-1951, however, Lachman Das secured a sale deed of the materials of the shop and the goods stored therein in his favour as also of the rights of Naqshe Ali and Mashooq Ali in the rest of the property which was 2 1/2 anna share. On the same date he made an application for allotment of the shop in his favour with the consent of Naqshe Ali and Mashooq Ali.
(3.) On 12-9-1951 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer made an order allotting the shop to Krishna Kumar opposite party. Against this order, the applicant filed a suit for the issue of an injunction restraining Krishna Kumar, from taking, and T. R. O. from giving, possession over the shop. He also made an application for a temporary injunction. His prayer was granted by the trial Court, but in appeal the temporary injunction was cancelled on the ground that the suit itself was not maintainable because no notice, as required by Section 80, C.P.C., had been given to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The applicant thereafter withdrew the suit and filed the present application under Article 226 of the Constitution.;