H.C.P.Tripathi, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against an order dated 15.5.1961 of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur, recalling his order of the allotment of the premises of 18.11.1960 passed in favour of the petitioner.
(2.) The facts of the case which are relevant to the questions in controversy are briefly stated: Shrimati Alakh Nanda Devi, respondent No. 3 is the owner of the premises No. 50/18 Naughara, Kanpur. One Suraj Bali Misra deceased, whose legal heirs have been brought on the record as opposite parties Nos. 2/1 to 2/7, was admittedly the tenant of the premises. On 8.11.1960 the petitioners put in an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for the allotment of the premises in their favour on the ground that at that time it was in possession of one Jagannath who did not hold any allotment order in his favour and that the petitioners needed it for setting up a cloth shop in the premises. An inquiry was made in this connection by the Rent Control Inspector who submitted a report (Annexure II to the petition) indicating therein that Jagannath was occupying the premises since about four months without an allotment order and his actual possession was that of a trespasser. He also reported that "the premises were in the tenancy of one Sri Suraj Bali who has left the accommodation. The owner has given this intimation in writing and has got no objection if the premises are allotted to the applicant under rule 7". It appears that on the basis of this report an order of allotment was passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 16.11.1960 and the petitioners obtained possession on 23.11.1960.
(3.) On 6.12.1960 applications were made to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the landlady and also by Suraj Bali Misra praying for the cancellation of the allotment order on the ground that it had been obtained by misrepresentation and fraud. Smt. Alakh Nanda Devi filed an affidavit asserting that she had never consented to the allotment of the premises in favour of the petitioners and that she had never put her thumb-impression on any paper indicating her consent. Suraj Bali also asserted that his tenancy was subsisting, that his shop was in his possession and that the misrepresentations were made in that regard by the petitioners for obtaining allotment in their favour. The Rent Control Officer, after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and after hearing them, came to the conclusion that "in this case fraud and misrepresentation have been perpetrated from beginning to end and in these circumstances the allotment order cannot be allowed to stand.";