Mootham, C.J. - (1.) This is an appeal from an order of a learned Judge dated the 20th September, 1955, allowing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The relevant facts are these.
(2.) The first respondent is the owner of certain premises in Banaras which, on the 9th September, 1953 were in the occupation of a tenant. On that date the first respondent informed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the premises were likely to fall vacant and should be allotted to some other tenant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer thereafter allotted the premises to one Nageshwar Prasad Dube, the date of the allotment order being the 2nd November, 1953. On the 12th November, 1953, the first respondent applied to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for the premises to be released in her favour, apparently on the ground that she wanted to restart a bullion business through her son-in-law. The application was rejected as the premises had already been allotted to Nageshwar Prasad Dube. Two days later, on the 14th November, the first Respondent again applied for the release of the premises in her favour. This application was considered by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer who, by an order dated the 3rd December, 1953, rejected the application on the ground that it was an afterthought and that she had no genuine need for the premises. Sri Nageshwar Prasad Dube thereafter obtained the possession of the premises and remained in occupation of them until June, 1954. On the 4th June, 1954, the premises were allotted to the second respondent, Sri Ghanshiam Das Agarwal, who entered into possession on the following day. This allotment order was admittedly made without prior intimation to the first respondent. On the 19th June, the first respondent again applied to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for the release of the premises in her favour. This application was rejected on the 3rd July and an application in revision was subsequently dismissed by the Commissioner on the 3rd March, 1955.
(3.) The first respondent then filed a petition in this Court in which she challenged the validity of the order of allotment dated the 14th June, 1955, in favour of Sri Ghanshiam Das Agarwal, and she prayed that the order be quashed and that a mandamus be issued to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer requiring him to make a fresh order of allotment after complying with the provision of Rule 6 of the Control of Rent and Eviction Rules. That petition was allowed by the order which is the subject of the present appeal. The order of allotment in favour of Ghanshiam Das Agarwal was quashed and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was directed to consider the need of the first respondent, and if he found that her need was genuine to allot the accommodation to her. The State now appeals.;