D.S. Sinha, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Upendra Singh, holding brief of Sri Ravi Kant, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Sri R. C. Yadav, learned standing counsel representing the Respondents.
(2.) EXERCISING powers conferred upon him under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Storage Requisition Act, 1955 (U.P. Act No. XXI of 1955) (hereinafter called the 'Act'), the District Magistrate, Saharanpur, the Respondent No. 1, passed an order dated 26th October, 1979, a copy whereof is Annexure '4' to the petition, whereby he requisitioned the godown belonging to the Petitioners for the professed object of storing foodgrains and other foodstuffs by the Regional Food Controller. Meerut and Senior Marketing Inspector, (Deoband), Saharanpur, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively, who were already occupying the building as tenant. This order is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Undisputed facts, as they emerge from the pleadings of the parties before this Court, are these: The disputed godown was let out to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under a written agreement, a copy whereof is Annexure C.A. -I to the counter -affidavit, sworn by Sri R. S. S. Yadav and filed on behalf of the Respondents, on an agreed monthly rent of Rs. 2,464. Later on, it appears that the Petitioners were not satisfied with the quantum of rent of the godown as they felt that in view of the changed circumstances, it had become inadequate. Therefore, they started pressing the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for increase in the monthly rent. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also felt that the demand of the Petitioners for increase of rent of the godown was reasonable and Justified. The Respondent No. 2, therefore, wrote a letter dated 5th October, 1978 to the Chief Accounts Officer, U.P., Lucknow recommending enhancement of the rent. A true copy of this letter is Annexure '1' to the petition. The Chief Accounts Officer, U.P., Lucknow referred the matter to the Government, Food and Civil Supply Department. But the Government turned down the suggestion for enhancement of the rent, as is evident from the letter dated 25th May, 1979 from the Joint Secretary to the Chief Accounts Officer, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, a copy whereof is Annexure '3' to the petition.
(3.) WHILE turning down the suggestion regarding enhancement of the rent of the godown, the Joint Secretary urged the Chief Accounts Officer, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow to request the concerned District Magistrate to initiate necessary proceedings under the Act for requisition of the godown which culminated in the impugned requisition order passed by the Respondent No. 1.;