- (1.) This is a petition on behalf of four persons who were originally tenants of a house No. DB 4/65 in mohalla Humayunpur in the city of Gorakhpur. They were tenants of the lower portion of this house. On 14-8-1952 they purchased this house. This house was, according to the allegations made in the petition, purchased by them because they were in great need for an accommodation. The upper portion was occupied by one Robin Biswas who vacated the house on 22-8-1954. When this portion fell vacant on 23-8-1954 the Petitioners sent a letter to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that as the house had fallen vacant it should be allotted to them. They had purchased the house for their own personal use and, therefore, they wanted its release in their favour. The house also required a thorough repair and the repairs in both the portions were done by the Petitioners at great cost.
(2.) On 9-12-1954 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, without giving any notice to the Petitioners or consulting them whatsoever, allotted the said portion of the house in favour of Ishwar Chand, opposite party No. 3, and on 10-12-1954, with the aid of the police, possession was delivered. On 14-12-1954 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer sent another order directing the Petitioners not to demolish any part of the upper house without previous permission from him. It is alleged that since the house required repairs and the repairs had not been done the house is deteriorating. Against the order of allotment and forcible ejectment Under Section 7-B of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act the Petitioners went up in revision to the Addl. Commr., Banaras Gorakhpur division who, though in his order has held that the procedure Under Section 7-A was not followed and the order was not justified, yet did not interfere with the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Aggrieved with that order, the Petitioners have come here.
(3.) It was contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioners that they had purchased the house because they wanted more accommodation and they contend that when the house had fallen vacant it should have been allotted to them, inter alia on the following grounds, Firstly, that they as landlords were living in a portion of the house and when the other portion of the house fell vacant they should have been consulted at the time of allotment. According to Rule 7 Where a portion of accommodation falls vacant and the owner is in occupation of another portion thereof, the District Magistrate shall, before making the allotment order, consult the owner and shall so far as possible make the allotment in accordance with the wishes of the owner.;