- (1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the orders of the District Judge, Rampur, dated 15-12-1954 and that of the Competent Authority dated 13-7-1954 and further to quash the notice under Section 7(1) of the U.P. Government Premises (Rent Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1952 (U.P. Act No. XXXIX of 1952) and 10 issue a writ of mandamus to the opposite party No. 1 the District Magistrate, Rampur, No. 3 the Superintendent of Police, Rampur, and No. 4 the Municipal Board, Rampur, ordering them not to take any action in pursuance of the notice dated 7-4-1954.
(2.) The Petitioners are proprietors of a firm of tobacco merchants known as Firm Syed Amjad Ali Mohibbe Ali. They were the lessees of certain Government premises consisting of two shops and a flat on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/ -. The lease was granted to the Petitioners prior to 1950. In the year 1950 the applicants were negotiating to sublet one of the two shops to the Bata Shoe Company. The House Allotment Officer objected to the right of the Petitioners to sublet without his permission. Consequently the Petitioners applied for and obtained sanction of the House Allotment Officer on 4-8-1950 and sublet the shop to the Bata Shoe Company. The land was under the management of the Nazul Department of the Municipal Board on behalf of the Government. On 19-12-1952 the U.P. Act XXXIX of 1952 came into force and on 7-4-1954 the District Magistrate, Rampur, who was authorised to perform the functions of the Competent Authority under the Act. gave notice to the applicants purporting to be one under Section 7(1) of the Act requiring the applicants to vacate the premises within thirty days of the notice on the ground that they had made an unauthorised subletting as they had sublet a part of the premises to the Bata Shoe Company. Objections were filed by the applicants against the legality of the notice inter alia on the ground that the Act did not apply to them. By the order dated 13-7-1954 the Competent Authority dismissed the objection and ordered the applicants to vacate the premises within ten days. An appeal was filed against this order under Section 8 of the Act to the District Judge, Rampur, who by his order dated 2-8-1954 passed an interim injunction restraining the eviction of the Petitioners. During the pendency of the appeal a sum of Rs. 320/ - as rent was paid by the Petitioners for the period upto 30-11-1954. As the rent was accepted an application was filed before the District judge by the applicants that the notice had become infructuous. The application was rejected by the District Judge on 13-12-1954 and by the order dated 15-12-1954 the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter talks of compromise between the Chairman of the Municipal Board, Rampur, and the applicants went on and the Petitioners went on paying rent. A sum of Rs. 320/ - as rent for the period upto 31-7-1955 was paid by the applicants to the Board. During the course of these negotiations the Municipal Board was superseded and the District Magistrate was appointed as the Administrator of the Board. The Petitioners have assorted that the Petitioners came to know that on 6-6-56 the District Magistrate wrote so the Superintendent of Police, Rampur, purporting to act in the exercise of the powers under Section 11 of the Act asking him for the police help to forcibly evict the applicants. Thereafter the Petitioners having come to know of this action of the District Magistrate filed the present petition on 14-6-1956. An interim order was passed restraining the opposite parties from evicting the Petitioners.
(3.) An application was thereafter filed on behalf of the opposite parties for vacating the interim order and pointing out that the Petitioners had already been dispossessed before the order could be served on the opposite parties. There was some controversy between the parties as regards the fact of eviction of the Petitioners. It is contended by the Petitioners that their goods are still lying inside the shop and only a lock had been put by the police but they had not in fact been dispossessed. It has however been asserted by the opposite parties that the Petitioners have been dispossessed. By a subsequent order of 22-3-1956 I directed that the writ itself should be decided at an early date.;