Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is an application for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing an allotment order passed by opposite -party No. 3 in favour of opposite -party No. 1 and for the issue of necessary directions to opposite -party No. 3 to hear the applicant's petition dated the 28th September, 1952 for the release of the house in his favour.
(2.) IT appears that the house which has been the subject of allotment by opposite party No. 3 was purchased by the applicant on the 29th September, 1950, from one Sri Parsotam Lal. The house was originally in the occupation of one A.B.L. Mathur who was transferred to Allahabad. The family of A.B.L. Mathur continued to occupy the house. It was then allotted to one K.N. Mathur on the 21st August, 1950 and once again to Sri M.P. Mathur. At the time when the allotment in favour of K.N. Mathur stood, one Bishun Narain Mathur occupied the lower story of the house as subtenant. He was also transferred and when he was about to leave the portion occupied by him, the applicant made an application to opposite -party No. 3 for release of this part of the house in favour of the applicant. The applicant received intimation on the 20th November, 1952, from the Rent Control Officer, opposite -party No. 3, to the effect that as the applicant had instituted a suit which was pending, the question of release or allotment of the house could not be taken up by opposite -party No. 3. On the 28th November, 1952, opposite -party No. 1 applied for the allotment of the lower portion of the house in dispute to him and an order of allotment was passed in his favour. The applicant has challenged the validity of the order of allotment in favour of opposite -party No. 1 and also the allotment order in favour of opposite -party No. 2 but his learned Counsel has during the course of arguments confined his relief only in respect of the allotment order passed in favour of opposite -party No. 1. It will not, therefore, be necessary to discuss the previous allotment in favour of other persons or of the allotment in favour of opposite -party No. 2.
(3.) THE main grievance of the applicant is that while he had been informed on the 28th November, 1952, that no question of release or allotment of the lower portion of the house could be taken up, an order of allotment had been made in favour of opposite -party No. 1 on the 11th February, 1953. In making this allotment in favour of opposite -party No. 1, the Rent Control Officer did not consider the application of the applicant for the release of the lower portion of the house to him as he needed it for his personal use. Learned Counsel for the applicant has relied on a Division Bench ruling of this Court in Sri Ram Narain Tewari v. Ram Chandra Sharma and the State of Uttar Pradesh through the House Rent Control and Eviction Officer Kanpur, 1953 A.W.R. 59 in which a similar question arose for consideration and it was held that if a Rent Control Officer does not apply his mind and does not take into consideration the request of the landlord for allotment of the whole or part of his own house to him and makes an allotment in favour of a third party, such an order would be an invalid order. In the present case also, we find that opposite -party No. 3 did not take into consideration the request of the applicant landlord for release or allotment of lower portion of the house in his favour. The order passed by the opposite -party No. 3 has no reference to the application made by the applicant and there is nothing in the order to show that the application or the request of the applicant for the release or allotment in his favour was ever taken into consideration when the allotment was made in favour of the opposite -party No. 1. The opposite -party No. 3 did not, therefore, apply his in mind and as such, the order of allotment passed in favour of opposite -party No. l is an invalid order.;