- (1.) This is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution by the owner of premises No. 13-A, Rajpur Road, Dehra Dun, praying that a writ of certiorari be issued to quash the District Magistrate's order dated 2-12-1954, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer's order dated 30-12-54 and the Addl. Commr's. order dated 6-7-55 and all proceedings for the ejectment of the applicant held in pursuance of these orders; and further that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the District Magistrate and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to evict the opposite party No. 4, Sri Gangadhar Jayal, forthwith and to deliver the possession of the premises to the applicant.
(2.) The facts as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the petition briefly are that one Sri Nitya Nand Khanna was the tenant of the premises and used to carry on business of exhibiting films in the said premises under the name and style of "New Empire Talkies". He made habitual defaults in the payment of rent and a suit for his ejectment was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Dehra Dun, in the year 1944, which was ultimately decreed on 26-2-1946. The decree however in view of the UP (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act which came into force subsequently could not be executed except on the grounds mentioned Under Section 3 of the Act. On 16-1-1951 after the decree the Petitioner applied for the release of the premises in his favour and that it should not be allotted to any other person than himself as he intended to carry on his own cinema business in the premises. According to the Petitioner the District Magistrate considered the need of the Petitioner as genuine and on 18-1-1951 he passed an order that after the tenants had been ejected the building in question was not to be allotted to anybody else and the landlord should be permitted to occupy it. As the Petitioner found it very difficult to get ejectment decree executed he entered into a compromise with Nitya Nand Khanna on 3-3-1951 which was filed before the Civil Judge in the course of the execution proceedings under which four years were allowed to the judgment-debtor to vacate the premises. He had also undertaken not to work the cinema in question in partnership with any other person during the aforesaid period of four years. The tenant however subsequently committed a default in the payment of the rent in spite of the service of notice. The decree was then executed for ejectment and possession was obtained by the Petitioner of the premises on 16-11-1954. The Petitioner further alleges that inspite of the agreement Nitya Nand Khanna took Sri Gangadhar Jayal, opposite party No. 4, as partner in the business who was also ejected in execution proceedings along with the tenant-in-chief Sri Nitya Nand Khanna. After the execution of the decree the Petitioner again applied on 17-11-1954 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for the release of the accommodation in his own favour. Other people had also applied for the allotment of the premises. All the applicants, including the Petitioner, were called and after hearing the parties on 22-11-1954 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer fixed on 6-12-1954 for delivering the order in the case. It appears that the matter came up before the District Magistrate as the opposite party No. 4 was not satisfied with the proceedings before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the District Magistrate called for the record from the office of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and on 2-12-1954 passed an order allotting the premises in question to the opposite party No. 4. As the Petitioner had no knowledge of the fact that the District Magistrate had called for the record he could not represent his case properly before him. On 6-12-1954 the parties appeared before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer but as the District Magistrate had already passed an order on 2-12-54 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed the following order: The case has been decided by the District Magistrate in his order dated 2-12-1954. Parties informed.
(3.) The Rent Control and Eviction Officer in view of the order of allotment passed by the District Magistrate proceeded with the eviction of the Petitioner. On 8-12-1954 a notice Under Section 7-A(1) was issued by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to the Petitioner to show cause why he should not be evicted. The Petitioner gave his explanation that the allotment order itself is illegal and consequently subsequent proceedings Under Section 7-A could not be taken against him. This objection was however rejected on 30-12-1954 by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. On 10-1-1955 the Petitioner went up in revision against this order Under Section 7-A(4) of the Act to the Commissioner and on 11-1-1955 the Commissioner stayed the enforcement of the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 30 12-1954 during the pendency of the revision. On 24-1-1J55 the opposite party No. 4 applied for vacating the stay order and on 25-1-1955 the Commissioner vacated the stay order without giving any notice to the applicant. On 1-2-1955 the Petitioner was dispossessed by the police force and the possession of the premises was delivered to the opposite party No. 4. The revision itself came up for hearing before the opposite party No. 3 on 6-7-1955 on which date it was dismissed. On these facts the present petition has been filed for the reliefs which I have mentioned above.;