Gulati, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitu tion by a charitable trust known as 'Sri Dwarikadhish Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandi, Dwarikadhish Road, Kanpur', through its Sarvarakar Sri Radha Krishna Singhania. The trust owns extensive properties in the city of Kanpur and has in its employment a large number of per sons to look after the properties and other affairs of the trust. House No. 7J95, situated in Tilak Nagar in one of the properties belonging to the trust which shall hereinafter be referred to as the house in dispute. It was in the tenancy of one Smt. Heeramaneck at a rent of Rs. 1201-per month. On February 9, 1971 an application on behalf of the trust was moved before the District Magistrate, Kanpur saying that the house in dispute was likely to fall vacant and that the same be releas ed in favour of the trust so as to enable it to provide office-cum-residence accommodation to its whole-time manager. It was also stated in this application that the house in dispute will not be let out. This application was supported by an affidavit of Sri R.K. Singhania. The application was passed on for disposal to Sri G.K. Tandon, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur. He conducted an enquiry through his Inspector, who reported that the previous tenant had gone to London and that the trust had a large number of houses which were occupied by tenants. Sri Tandon ultimately rejected the application on June 7, 1971 on the finding that the need of the applicant was neither genuine nor bone. fide. In arriving at this finding he took into consideration the following circumstances: - (i) That no particulars had been given about the status of the man who was engaged as a whole time Manager. (ii) It was doubtful if the manager would of such a status as to live in a house carryiyng rent of Rs. 120.00 per month. (iii) That the house in dispute was fetching good rent and it was inadvisable for the Manager of the Trust to forego the Rental in come. (vi) Alternative arrangement should be made for the residence of the manager in a house carrying lesser rent. Two days later, on June 9, 1971 the house was allotted in favour of the 3rd respondent, Smt. Krishna Kaul, the wife of the District Magistrate, Kanpur, Sri P.N. Kaul.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the orders of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the ground of mala fide. He says that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is under the subordination of the District Magistrate, whose wife wanted the house to be allotted to her. It is further alleged that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the District Magistrate had planned in advance to allot the house to the wife of the District Magistrate after rejecting the petitioner's application for release. It has been further alleged that the disposal of the petitioner's release application had been de liberately delayed until the Civil Courts had closed so that the peti tioner may not be able to obtain a stay order. The petitioner, how ever, promptly challenged the impugned orders by means of a writ petition in this Court during the summer vacation and obtained a stay order. Thereafter he moved the State Government under Section 7-F of the
(3.) RENT Control and Eviction Act. 1947. The writ petition was eventually dismissed as the petitioner had already availed of the alterminative remedy of a representation under Section 7-F to the State Government. The revision petition of the petitioners has been rejected by the Sate Government by its order dated February 2, 1972 and the petitioners have now approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.;