Gulati, J. - (1.) THIS petition arises out of proceedings under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as the Act).
(2.) THE petitioners are brothers. Their family consists of them selves, their 3 brothers, one of whom is married and their parents. The father of the petitioners, Sardar Ishar Singh, along with his wife and 5 sons, had been living in a flat of a'building known as 'Kunj Bihari Palace' situated in Kaushalpuri, at Kanpur, for the last about 15 years. This accommodation, according to the petitioners, was neither enough nor suitable for their requirements and when one of their brothers, Jaspal Singh, get married, he had to hire a separate flat in Swaroopnagar at Kanpur at a rental of Rs. 200.00 per month. Sardar Ishar Singh purchased House No. 71164 Swaroop Nagar, Kan pur. It was in the occupation of U.P. Financial Corporation. It is stated that Sardar Ishar Singh pursuaded the Corporation to vacate the house so that he could live there with his family. The Corpora tion eventually purchased a building of its own. As it was likely to shift its office to its own building, the petitioners made an application to the District Magistrate, Kanpur for the release of the house in their favour. This application appears to have been passed on to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for disposal. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer without deciding the release application and without notice to the petitioners allotted the house to respondent No. 4, the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the allottee). The allotment was made on the orders of the District Magistrate to whom the allottee had addressed a letter. The petitioners moved an application before the District Magistrate pro testing against the manner in which the house had been allotted to another person without considering their release application. The petitioners fearing that they may not be able to get redress at the hands of the District Magistrate because the allottee it was a senior I.A.S. Officer who had been a Commissioner of Lucknow Division, filed a Writ Petition in this Court (Civil Misc. Writ No. 4397 of 1971). While this petition was pending the District Magistrate, Kanpur can celled the allotment order as a result the petition was dismissed as having become infructuous. Thereafter the release application of the petitioners was taken up for consideration by Sri G.K. Tandon, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur. The allottee filed an objection and the petitioners filed rejoinder-affidavit stating inter alia that the house in dispute had been purchased for their personal occupation as was mentioned in the sale-deed itself and that the land lord of the flat in Kunj Bihari Palace, where they had been residing had filed a Civil Suit for their ejectment on the ground that they had made unauthorised constructions Arguments were heard on Septem ber 7, 1972 on behalf of the petitioners and the allottee and Septem ber 17, 1971 was fixed as the date for judgment. In the meantime on September 16, 1971 Mr. Tandon sent a note to the District Magistrate asking him to transfer the case to the District Supply Officer, Kanpur. On the same date the District Magistrate accepted this request and transferred the case to the file of District Supply Officer.
(3.) THE Dis trict Supply Officer heard the arguments and passed order dated Sep tember 30, 1971 rejecting the application of the petitioners for the re lease of the house in their favour. The petitioners thereupon filed the present writ petition and a Bench of this Court passed an art interim order directing the respondents not to allot the house until further orders. In the meantime the Financial Corporation vacated the house and its possession was delivered to the petitioners. It has been alleged that at about mid night on that very day a large number of policemen along with P.A.C. came and tried to dislodge the peti tioners forcibly. The petitioners have challenged the order of the District Supply Officer dated September 30, 1971 rejecting their re lease application.;