Hari Swarup, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed for quashing an order of allotment passed under Section 7(2) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter called the Act). On 29 -9 -70 in favour of the Excise Inspector and an order of the District Magistrate dated 22 -10 -74 by which he requested the Superintendent of Police Mainpuri to provide police assistance for restoring and maintaining the status quo ante as it existed before 10 -9 -74 and to restrain the present Petitioner from interfering with the possession of the excise licensee running the liquor shop. The order also directed that the F.I.R. against the Petitioner and others lodged on 10 -9 -74 at police station Shikohabad should be proceeded with and the investigation completed without delay. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus is also claimed to restrain the Respondent from interfering with the rights of the Petitioner and for restoration to him of the possession over the shop in dispute in the form as it stood in 1974.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present petition are as under: There is a shop in which the business of vending liquor was carried on by the licencee under the Excise Act. The people of the locality did not like it and some residents including father of the present Petitioner sent a telegram to the District Magistrate on 4th April 1970 that the shop may not be allotted to the next licencee. The licence for vend of liquor commences from 1st of April every year and ends on March 31 next year. One Pearey Lal Arora was the tenant of this shop and was running the liquor business in the year 1969 -70; for this year he was the liencee. Since April 1970 licence was given to Girraj Saran Singh for one year. In subsequent year also he being the highest bidder was given licence and he continued to carry on the sale in the shop in dispute. On 12 -5 -70 the present Petitioner purchased this building and on 15th July 1970 filed a suit in the court of the Munsif, Shikohabad against Pearey Lal Arora whose contract had already come to an end. The Petitioner also impleaded Girraj Singh alleging him to be the sub -tenant of the shop and made this alleged sub -tenancy as a ground for eviction of Pearey Lal Arora. On 21 -9 -1970 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an allotment order under Section 7(2) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act allotting the shop in the name of the Excise Inspector for the purpose of the shop being used for vend of liquor by the licencee. Under Section 7 -C of the Act, rent was also deposited on behalf of the Excise Inspector. On 6 -5 -1972 the Petitioner filed an objection in 7 -C proceedings Before this on 9 -12 -1970 Girraj Saran Singh had filed a written statement in the suit and had brought out the fact in the written statement that allotment in the shop had been made in favour of the Excise Inspector and Girraj Saran Singh was carrying on business of vending liquor in this shop as tenant. Inspite of this fact being brought to the notice of the Petitioner he did not get the plaint amended to seek relief against the Excise Inspector or against Girraj Saran Singh in his capacity as a licencee on behalf of the Excise Inspector or as a person claiming to occupy the shop in his own right as tenant. After 31st March 1972 the licence in favour of Girraj Saran Singh also came to an end and Ram Gopal became the licencee. He continued vending of liquor in this shop since obtaining of the licence. The suit, however, continued as it was fired, and the present Petitioner obtained an exparte decree on 16 -11 -1973 against Pearey Lal Arora and Girraj Saran Singh.
(3.) THE decree was sought to be executed as against the judgment debtors in the decree even though the shop was in the occupation of Ram Gopal and he was carrying on business under a licence from the Government. On 23 -8 -1974 the decree was sought to be executed for delivery of possession as against the judgment -debtors, but it was not actually executed. An application was filed in the Execution Court by the decree holder to the effect that the judgment -debtors had refused to deliver possession and it was necessary that the police aid be given to break open the locks and to deliver possession. The report of the Amin however was different. According to the Amin's report resistance was put by the employees of the contractor, and that they had refused to deliver the possession. In the face of the facts mentioned above the affidavit filed by the present Petitioner in the execution proceedings was obviously false. The licence was given under the Excise Act by open acution. The auction is published and people always come to know of it was, also known to the Petitioner that the rent was being deposited under Section 7 -C of the old Act on behalf of the Excise Inspector by the new licensee. It cannot be taken that the Petitioner was unaware of the fact that neither Pearey Lal Arora nor Girraj Saran Singh were the contractors carrying on the business on the date of execution. His affidavit accordingly filed before the Execution Court cannot particularly in view of the report of the Amin, be taken as containing any thing but falsehood.;