Desai, J. - (1.) This is an appeal from a judgment of our brother M.L. Chaturvedi rejecting the Appellant's petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash orders made by the Distt. Magistrate on July 8 and 9, 1955 writs of mandamus requiring him to remove the Respondent Nizamuddin from certain premises. Formerly the premises contained a shoe factory which was worked by the owner of the premises. The owner then made a waqf of the premises along with the business. The waqf committee let out the premises along with the business to the East India Leather Company for a term of three years which expired on 22-5-1955. The East India Leather Company worked the factory for about a year and then stopped working it but continued in possession of the premises and the machinery kept in them. In the middle of July, 1955 the waqf committee thought of letting out the premises and selling the machinery. The petitioner applied to it for a lease of the premises, it decided to lease them out to him and he deposited one year's rent in advance. He applied to the District Magistrate for allotment of the premises to him under Section 7 of the UP (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. Nizamuddin respondent also applied to the District Magistrate for an allotment order in his favour in respect of the premises; his application was supported by a member of the Legislative Assembly and the District Magistrate on 8-7-1955 directed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to allot the premises to Nizamuddin and the Rent Control and Eviction officer on 9-7-1955 issued an order allotting them to him. Subsequently the District Magistrate issued a notice to the waqf committee requiring it to put Nizamuddin in possession of the premises and Nizamuddin was put in possession of the premises and continues to be in possession.
(2.) The petitioner claimed before our learned brother that the premises did not amount to "accommodation" within the meaning of the UP (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act because the premises along with the business carried on in them were let out to him by the waqf committee, that consequently the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction over the premises and could not pass any order of allotment and could not put Nizamuddin in possession of the premises and that consequently the orders passed by him on July 8 and 9, 1955 should be quashed. There was also a prayer for the quashing of the order made by him under Section 7A(2) of the Act but Sri S.N. Misra conceded before us that that order has been rendered infructuous and does not require to be quashed. A prayer also was made for a mandamus requiring the District Magistrate etc. to evict Nizamuddin from the premises and place the petitioner in possession.
(3.) Our learned brother dismissed the petition. He held that the premises amounted to "accommodation" because what the waqf committee had decided to let out to the petitioner was only the premises and not the premises along with the business carried on in them. He also took into consideration the fact that the East India Leather Company had stopped the business in the last two years of its term of lease. Since he held that the premises were governed by the Act he refused the prayers for the issue of a certiorari and writs of mandamus.;