- (1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur on 22-12-1953.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, one Hari Saran Rastogi was the tenant of a shop owned by the petitioner and the tenant was carrying on a business in that shop under the name and style of "golden Biscuit Factory". Hari Saran on 1-7-1953 intimated to the Rent Control and Eviction officer, Gorakhpur that he had sold the entire goods of the shop along with its goodwill to opposite party No. 2, Hanuman Prasad. Even before this intimation was sent by Hari Saran, an application had been made on behalf of a firm, Mata Prasad A]odhya Prasad, for allotment of this shop in their favour, The petitioner also applied for its allotment and a third application for allotment was made by Hanuman Prasad, the purchaser of the Golden Biscuit Factory. While these applications were pending, Hari Saran Rastogi actually left the premises and, before any allotment order could be passed, opposite party No. 3 filed a suit in the court of the Munsif, gorakhpur for an injunction restraining the petitioner from ejecting him from the premises and from obstructing him from carrying on business in that shop. In connection with this suit, the learned Munsif passed an 'ad interim' injunction restraining the petitioner from ejecting opposite party No. 3. That 'ad interim' injunction was confirmed by the learned Munsif to remain in force during the pendency of the suit and has been challenged in appeal by the petitioner. On 21-9-1953, the Additional District Magistrate heard the various applications for allotment and-recorded an order in which he said: "the shop will therefore be allotted to Sri Ram Lakhan. Another applicant Sri Ram Swarath, could have been allotted this shop because he is on the priority list but as' remarked above the needs of the owner carry more weight than Ram Swarath's claim. The file is returned to R. C. and e. O. for taking further action according to law. " Against this order opposite party No. 3 filed a revivision before the Commissioner and the additional Commissioner on 22-12-1953 vacated that order of the Additional District Magistrate dated 21-9-1953. By this petition the petitioner seeks the vacation of the order of the Additional commissioner dated 22-12-1953 on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to pass such an order.
(3.) WHEN this petition came up for hearing, the petitioner was given time to file a supplementary affidavit to indicate which officer could exercise the powers of a District Magistrate under the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act of 1947 in respect of this shop. He has filed a supplementary affidavit indicating that the powers can be exercised by the Additional District magistrate who has been authorised by the District Magistrate and not by the District Supply officer, Gorakhpur who is also known as the Rent Control and Eviction Officer there. In addition, learned counsel for the petitioner has put up before me today an order issued under section 7 (1) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 allotting this shop to the petitioner.;