V.Bhargava, J. - (1.) This special appeal is directed against a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which was filed by the appellant.
(2.) The appellant is the owner of a building which included within it a shop which was on rent with Messrs. Bata Shoe Company as tenants. The appellant himself is residing in a portion of the same building which is used for residential purposes. On the ground floor there are two shops and it was one of these shops which was in the occupation of Messrs Bata Shoe Company. In 1961 the applicant came to know that Messrs Bata Shoe Company were going to vacate the shop and he therefore applied to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur, for an order of release in his favour under rule 6 of the Rules framed under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Subsequently a number of other persons appeared and they also applied that the shop be allotted to them under Section 7(2) of the Act. One of them was the respondent, Raghunath Prasad Mehrotra. The shop was actually vacated by Messrs. Bata Shoe Company on August 15, 1962. The case relating to the release of the shop and its allotment was dealt with for sometime by an officer at Kanpur designated as the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. But in September 1962 the case was taken up by the Additional District Magistrate, Kanpur, who was also authorised to exercise the powers of a District Magistrate under the Act just as the other officer designated as the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had been authorised. The actual vacancy of the shop had been communicated to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by a letter dated the 16th August 1962. On the 17th September 1962 the Additional District Magistrate passed an order rejecting the appellant's application for release of the shop in his favour and then gave a direction to the effect that he would therefore "order that this accommodation be allotted to Raghunath Prasad Mehrotra". On the next day, i.e. the 18th September 1962, a formal order of allotment was issued under the signature of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer directing the appellant to let out his shop to Raghunath Prasad Mehrotra.
(3.) The appellant, being dissatisfied with these proceedings, filed a suit in the court of the First Civil Judge, Kanpur challenging the allotment proceedings. In that suit the District Magistrate, the Additional District Magistrate or the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was not made a party. While that suit was pending, a compromise was entered into between the appellant and Raghunath Prasad Mehrotra. That compromise was filed and verified in court and the court passed a decree in the suit in terms of the compromise. The most important term in the compromise was that Raghunath Prasad Mehrotra was not to take possession of the shop in case and as long as the appellant wanted to use the shop for his own purpose; and it was further agreed that, if the appellant at any time wanted that the shop be let out, it would first be offered to Raghunath Prasad Mehrotra who would have the first refusal after being informed of the reasonable amount of rent which the appellant could claim for the shop. After this compromise, it appears that the appellant entered into actual occupation of the shop and started using it for his own purposes.;