- (1.) JUDGEMENT DESAI, J. Appellant No. 1 is the landlord of an accommodation and appellant No. 2 is only her representative and has no interest in the accommodation or in the building of which the accommodation is a part. The accommodation is a portion of a building and another portion of it is in the occupation of appellant No. 2. The accommodation fell vacant and appellant No. 1 applied to the District Magistrate that an order be passed permitting her to occupy it herself. The District Magistrate ordered her to let it to another person, respondent No. 3. She went up in revision against the order but the Commissioner refused to interfere. Then she and the other appellant filed the petition for certiorari for the quashing of the order of the District Magistrate on the ground that it was passed in infringement of the provisions of rules 6 and 7 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Rules. Rule 6 is to the effect that "When the District Magistrate is satisfied that an accommodation .. .. .. .. is bona fide needed by the landlord for his own personal occupation, he may permit him to occupy it himself," and rule 7 is to the effect that, "Where a portion of an accommodation falls vacant and the owner is in occupation of another portion thereof, the District Magistrate shall, before making the allotment order, consult the owner and shall, so far as possible, make the allotment in accordance with the wishes of the owner."
(2.) OUR brother, G.C. Mathur held that the District Magistrate infringed the provisions of neither rule 6 nor rule 7 and refused to quash the order. The appellants have come up in appeal. As regards rule 7, we find that it has no application to the facts of the instant case for two good reasons. One is that the whole of the accommodation has fallen vacant and not a portion of it. One Ram Prasad was a tenant of the accommodation that has fallen vacant and the whole of the premises of which he was a tenant has fallen vacant. Rule 7 applies when a portion of an accommodation fails vacant and not when the whole of an accommodation fails vacant. When the whole fails vacant, it is impossible to predicate that a portion of it is in the occupation of another person. If a person is in anothers occupation the whole does not fall vacant at all. The other reason is that the appellant, who alone is the landlord, is not occupying a portion of the accommodation that has fallen vacant. Not only is she not occupying a portion of the accommodation that has fallen vacant, but also she is not occupying the remaining portion of the building of which the accommodation is a part. The remaining portion is in the occupation of appellant No. 2 and not appellant No. 1. Under rule 7 the other portion roust he in the occupation of the landlord himself and not his representative or agent. What is required is actual occupation and not possession. The appellant is occupying another building. As rule 7 was not applicable, the District Magistrate was not required to pass an order in accordance with the wishes of appellant No. 1.
(3.) AS regards rule 6, the District Magistrate might have been required to permit appellant No. 1 to occupy the accommodation herself, if he had been satisfied that it was bona fide needed by her for her own personal occupation. Here the District Magistrate has found that it was not required by her for her own personal occupation and this is a finding of fact. This Court is powerless to interfere with a finding of fact recorded by an inferior tribunal on consideration of materials placed before it. Certiorari can be issued only on the ground of want or excess of jurisdiction or manifest error of law and arriving at an unsound or improper finding of fact is neither exercising jurisdiction not vested nor committing a manifest error of law.;