Mehrotra, J. - (1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 30-11-1954 passed by the Munsif West Allahabad by which he ordered the ejectment of the petitioner from the house No. 8 Lowther Road Allahabad be issued.
(2.) The facts disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of the petition are that one Pt. Laxmi , Narain Tiwari had taken plot No. 55 George Town Allahabad under a lease dated 13-7-1915 and had constructed a house on the said plot which was subsequently numbered 8, Lowther Road. He died in the year 1925 leaving behind his widow Mst. Ganga Devi and four daughters Mst. Manorama Devi Shanti Devi, Sarojini Devi, Ram Shri Devi. They were all unmarried at the time of his death. The petitioner, as will appear from the affidavit mentioned above, is the third daughter of late Pt. Laxmi Narain Tiwari. Certain sum of money was left by him in cash in the Allahabad Bank and also a Printing Press called the George Town Printing Works Allahabad. The press it is alleged was run by Sri Khalil Uddin who subsequently turned out to be dishonest in collusion with the widow and squandered away all the property of Pt. Laxmi Narain Tiwari and in the year 1942 only the house No. 8 Lowther Road remained with the family with an encumbrance of Rs. 22,000/-. The eldest daughter was married in 1927, the second daughter was married in 1934 and the applicant and her younger sister the fourth daughter were married in 1940. In 1946 a suit was brought by the present applicant for a declaration that the debt of Rs. 22,000/- incurred by Mst. Ganga Devi widow of Pt. Laxmi Narain Tiwari was not binding upon the reversioners. To this suit were impleaded the auction purchasers end the decree-holder of bungalow No. 8, Lowther Road and one Jagdamba Prasad purchaser of mortgagee right from the widow of one Bhole Lal Tamoli who was one of the creditors of Mst. Ganga Devi, widow of late Pt. Laxmi Narain Tiwari. The three other daughters of late Pt. Laxmi Narain Tiwari and his elder brother were impleaded as pro forma defendants to the suit. In execution of the decree the house had been auctioned on 29-5-1946. That suit is alleged to have been decreed except in respect of an item of Rs. 11,000/for which amount existed a mortgage-deed executed some time in the year 1931. A first appeal was filed against the aforesaid decision of the Civil Judge regarding the sum of Rs. 11,000/- in this Court. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal in this Court the auction purchaser Premnath filed an application under Section 7B, Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1947 in the Court of Munsif West Allahabad for realisation of rent from the applicant and Sri Ram Naresh Upadhya alleged to be a sub-tenant of the applicant amounting to Rs. 550/-. A notice of the aforesaid application was received by the applicant some time in March 1953. On this notice she was required either to deposit Rs. 550/- or furnish security, for the said amount by 28-3-1953 in the Court of Munsif, West Allahabad. On 17-3-1953 an objection was filed by the applicant to the application, under Section 7B to the Rent Control and Eviction Act on the ground that the applicant Premnath was not the landlord within the meaning of the Rent Control and Eviction Act as" the title to the property in question was being challenged by the applicant and other sisters in Suit No. 11 of 1946. As regards Sri Ram Naresh Upadhya it was alleged that he was in occupation of one of the rooms in the said house under an allotment order issued in his favour by the. Rent Control and Eviction Officer and he was not a sub-tenant and that the opposite party Premnath was not a landlord. She herself claimed to be the landlord of the premises. During the pendency of these proceedings Ganga Devi widow of Pt. Laxmi Narain died and the applicant was in sole possession of the aforesaid premises. On 28-3-1953 when the matter came up for hearing before the Munsif her objections were not allowed to be heard unless she deposited the money claimed in the notice. On this the counsel for the applicant prayed for some time to deposit the money. The Munsif gave 15 days' time to deposit the money in cash. The order passed by the Munsif on 28-3-1953 has been quoted in para 21 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner. A writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution against the aforesaid order of the Munsif praying that a writ of Certiorari be issued quashing the order dated 28th March of the Munsif West and also for the issue of a writ of Mandamus to compel the Munsif to decide the question whether the petitioner was tenant of respondent 2, and whether she was the landlord of the house.
(3.) By an order dated 12-11-1954 this petition was rejected on the ground that certain relevant facts had been suppressed in the petition and that the order which was sought to be quashed was an order based on the consent of the parties. A special appeal was filed against the aforesaid order of a single Judge of this Court which was again dismissed on 24-1-1955. Thereafter on 12-2-1955 the petitioner received a communication from the office of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad to the effect that Munsif West by his order dated 30-11-1954, passed under Section 7 (7B?), Rent Control and Eviction Act had ordered the eviction of the applicant from the house. By the said order the Munsif had further authorised the use of the police force for the ejectment of the petitioner. During the pendency of the writ petition in this Court a suit had been filed by the applicant in the Court of the Civil Judge, Allahabad by which she challenged the auction of the house held in 1946 on the ground of fraud. After the receipt of the communication from the Rent Control & Eviction Officer on 12-2-1955 an application for interim injunction was filed in the suit. An interim injunction was granted by the Judge which was ultimately rejected on 9-4-1955. The first appeal which was filed against the decision of the Civil Judge, in suit No. 11 of 1946 was dismissed by this Court on 29-3-1955 for deficiency of court-fee.;