- (1.) A. B. Srivastava, J. Affidavit having been exchanged between the parties, the petition is being finally disposed of after hearing the learned counsel for both sides in accordance with rules of the Court.
(2.) THE petitioner No. 1 Bechan Prasad is the landlord of House No. CK-39/8 Dalmandi, Varanasi, Banarasi Lal and Mangal Prasad, the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are occupants of the 1st and IInd floor portion of the said premises. One Smt. Sita Devi a dancing girl, was tenant of the premises in question (1st and 2nd floor ). According to the petitioners she was forcibly ousted by the police in their drive to evict dancing girls from the said locality. On the report of the police, the R. C. & E. O. without following due process of law, allotted the said premises on 17-5-1972 to the respondent No. 3. However, the landlord again put back Sita Devi in occupation of the said premises. Subsequently application was moved by the landlord and Sita Devi to cancel the said allotment order, whereas the respondent No. 3 moved an 'application to the R. C. & E. O. to restore the possession to him. R. C. & E. O. by his order dated 29-9-1972 declined to cancel the allotment order and also rejected the prayer of respondent No. 3 for restoration of possession on the ground that once the allottee came into possession of the allotted premises the allotment order stood exhausted and against subsequent dispossession, the petitioner could not approach R. C. & E. O. rather had his remedy before the Civil Court. In appeal the District Judge declined to interfere. The respondent No. 3 thereupon filed Civil Suit No. 375 of 1973 for possession before the Munsif Varanasi. The learned Munsif dismissed the suit on 21-12-1981 with a finding that the respondent No. 3 has failed to prove that he took possession in pursuance of the allotment order. On 1-2-1982 the respondent No. 3 again moved R. C. & E. O. for eviction of Smt. Seeta Devi. The R. C. & E. O. by order dated 15-6-1988 rejected the said application and directed the record to be consigned.
(3.) THE petitioner Nos. 2 arid 3 who allege to have been residing with Smt. Seeta Devi in her life-time, claim to have, inherited the tenancy after her death on 20-2-1983. THE respondent No. 3 appears to have moved another application under S. 16 (4) of Act 13 of 1972 read with Section 151, C. P. C. for delivery of possession. THE same was allowed by R. C. & E. O. vide order dated 26-7-1988 and notice in Form C was directed to be issued, THE revision filed by the petitioners before the District Judge was dismissed by his order dated 22-9-1994. THEse orders of R. C. & E. O. and the revisional court, are sought to be quashed by means of writ of certiorari. The petitioners during the course of argument have sought to chal lenge the validity of the allotment order dated 17-5-1992, although no such relief to that effect has been claimed in the prayer of the writ petition. On facts and in law, however, there does not appear any illegality in the order of allotment which was passed as far back as 22 years ago and was affirmed by the appellate court and was not challenged by means of any writ petition.;