Parmeshwar Dayal, J. - (1.) The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that opposite party No. 3 Ishtiaq Ali is the landlord of House No. 253/6, Nadan Mahal Road, Lucknow. The dispute relates to a three door shop No. 253/6 with two small rooms of which the opposite party No. 2 Mizra Yawar Husain has been the tenant. Mirza Yawar Husain sent intimation in writing to the District Magistrate, Lucknow in June, 1975, that he had decided to vacate the disputed shop. Consequently proceedings for allotment of the said shop were started treating it to be a likely vacancy. The Petitioner Krishna Murari Rastogi moved an application for allotment of this shop in his favour. The Inspector went on the spot to ascertain about the vacancy of the disputed shop. Mirza Yawar Husain expressed his intention before him not to vacate the disputed shop and the Inspector gave his report dated 22 -10 -75 as contained in Annexure -1. The proceedings for allotment were dropped. Later on one Raj Narain moved an application for allotment. The tenant Mirza Yawar Husain again sent intimation in writing to the District Magistrate, Lucknow on 9 -1 -76 that he was going to vacate the disputed shop. The proceedings for allotment again started. The tenant Mirza Yawar Husain and the landlord Ishtiaq Ali gave their statements to the Inspector on 26 -1 -76 and 27 -1 -76 respectively, contained in Annexure -2 and 3, to the effect that Mirza Yawar Husain intended to vacate the disputed shop. The Inspector gave his report dated 31 -1 -76 contained in Annexure -4, to the effect that the disputed shop was likely to fall vacant and it was to be allotted. The disputed shop was deplored vacant on 11 -2 -76 and a notice was served on the landlord. The landlord sent a letter, dated 11 -2 -76, contained in Annexure -5, to the effect that the shop may be allotted to Raj Narain whose application for allotment was pending.
(2.) The Petitioner contended that the tenant Mirza Yawar Husain and the landlord Ishtiaq AH were in collusion with Raj Narain for having received premium and this is why the tenant Mirza Yawar Husain first expressed that he was not going to vacate the disputed shop and later on , after Raj Narain moved an application for allotment, both of them indicated that the shop was going to fall vacant, and that the landlord sent a letter dated 11 -2 -76 nominating Raj Narain as his tenant.
(3.) The disputed shop was first allotted in favour of the Petitioner Krishna Murari Rastogi on 7 -4 -76, as contained in Annexure -6. Raj Narain, in whose favour the landlord had consented vide letter Annexure -5, filed a Rent Revision No. 220 of 76 before the District Judge, Lucknow which revision was dismissed on 30 -7 -76, vide judgment contained in Annexure -7. The allotment order dated 7 -4 -76 in favour of the Petitioner Krishna Murari Rastogi had become final but the tenant Mirza Yawar Husain did not deliver the possession to him. Consequently, an order in Form ' C ' was issued, as contained in Annexure -8, requiring the tenant Mirza Yawar Husain to deliver possession to the Petitioner Krishna Murari Rastogi on or before 12 -9 -76.;