- (1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the order dated 11th July, 1955, passed by the State Government and that a writ of prohibition be also issued to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer not to take any further proceedings under Section 7-A of the U.P. Act III of 1947 to dispossess the applicant from the shop in question.
(2.) The facts of the case are that there is a shop No. 2860/4-5 situate in Sheo Ka Bazar in the city of Agra. The applicant states that he had been in occupation of the shop since the year, 1951. Admittedly the shop was allotted in the name of opposite party No. 4, Damodar Das who left it as he was carrying on his business in the adjoining shop and the shop was in occupation of the present applicant. The applicant applied for the allotment of the said shop in his favour on 12th January, 1954. The shop was allotted to the applicant on the 19th January, 1954. The applicant thereupon, on the 20th January, 1954, informed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that he had continued in occupation of the shop in pursuance of the allotment order in his favour. On the 6th February, 1954, the opposite-party made an application to the District Magistrate praying for cancellation of the order of allotment dated 19th January, 1954, on the ground that the allotment order had been passed without any proper inquiry and the present applicant had been in continuous possession of the shop not in his own right but on behalf of the opposite-party No. 4. The District Magistrate issued notice to the applicant and also got a report from the Rent Control Inspector. After considering the matter, the District Magistrate sent the case to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer with the direction to restart the inquiry. The order forwarding the case for an inquiry to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer also indicated some of the grounds on which, according to the District Magistrate, the order of allotment was not properly made. After the matter was sent back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, he, on the 12th May, 1954, passed a long order by which he cancelled the allotment in favour of the applicant made on the 19th January, 1954. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer in his order dated 12th May, 1954, held that the opposite party had a right to apply for the cancellation of the allotment order and that the possession of the applicant was either as a sub-tenant or servant of the opposite party No. 4. There is controversy between the parties on the question as to what; was the nature of the applicant's possession over the shop. According to the applicant he was carrying on his own business in the shop as the opposite party No. 4 had given up possession. According to the opposite party No. 4, he was only a servant employed by him and was managing his business. It is not necessary at this stage for me to go into that question of fact, but the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer cancelling his order of allotment dated 19th January, 1954, is based on the finding that the opposite party No. 4 had in fact never vacated the premises and the possession of the applicant was for and on behalf of the opposite party No. 4. On that finding the Rent Control and Eviction Officer cancelled his previous order of allotment in favour of the applicant. Proceedings under Section 7-A were also started against the applicant and on the 18th May, 1954, another order was passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to the effect that the allotment order of 19th January, 1954, had been cancelled and the applicant was directed to deliver possession of the said shop to Damodar Das by May 21, 1954. Against this order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer directing the delivery of possession to Damodar Das, the applicant went up in revision to the Commissioner. The Commissioner by his order dated 27th of July, 1954, set aside the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 18th of May, 1954. It is necessary to quote the order of the Commissioner which is as follows: The applicant obtained an allotment order on 19th January, 1954 and has been in possession. Now the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, has cancelled the allotment order on the ground that it was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and has directed the applicant to vacate the shop in dispute. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no jurisdiction to cancel the allotment order dated 19th January, 1954. I allow the revision application.
(3.) This order of the Commissioner was passed under Section 7-A(4) of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act. In effect, this order set aside the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer cancelling his previous order and restored his previous order dated 19th January, 1954, allotting the shop to the applicant. The opposite party No. 4 then filed a revision before the State Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 7-F of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act, set aside the order of the Commissioner and restored that of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 18th May, 1954. It is that order of the State Government which is challenged by means of the present petition.;