Gopalji Mehrotra, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner has claimed a writ of certiorari quashing the orders of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Kanpur dated 12 -5 -1954 and 16 -6 -1954 and that of the State Government dated 31 -1 -1956.
(2.) THE opposite party No. 4 is the landlord of the disputed premises in the city of Kanpur. The Petitioner states that he took the house on rent from opposite party No. 4 in the year 1939 and has been living in this house with his two sons Avadh Gopal and Raj Gopal and a number of other members of his family. As the Petitioner is an old and retired man the work of the family was mostly done by his eldest son Avadh Gopal Bhatnagar. The rent was also paid by him on behalf of the joint family, and the receipts were obtained in his name. The left wing of the house was in the occupation of Avadh Gopal and the rest of it was occupied by the applicant and other members of his family. Some domestic trouble arose between the father and the eldest son and Avadh Gopal Bhatnagar left Kanpur with his family. On 30 -4 -1954 due to the family dispute. Avadh Gopal sent a telegram to the landlord saying that he had vacated the premises in question. On the l0th of May, 1954 the Senior House Inspector inspected the premises and sent his report to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer about the vacancy of premises. The opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 Sri Indra Kumar Labour Officer and the landlord approached the District Magistrate who by his order dated 12 -5 -1954 ordered the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to allot the house to Indra Kumar. The applicant, however, Bled his objection before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur, on 12 -5 -1954 which was rejected by him and he passed the following order on the application of opposite party No 3: In view of District Magistrate's directions, I allot the premises to the applicant whose need is more pressing. On 20 -5 -1954 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer sent a notice thereafter under Section 7A(1) to the Petitioner requiring him to appear before the; said officer on 31 -5 -1954 to show cause why he should not be forcibly evicted from the premises. The Petitioner filed an application on 24 -5 -1954 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer who by his order dated 16 -6 -1954 dismissed the applicant's objection and ordered him to deliver possession to the allottee by 28 -6 -1954. Against the aforesaid order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 16 -6 -1954 a revision was filed by the Petitioner before the Commissioner who admitted the same and stayed proceedings for eviction meanwhile. By his order dated 27 -5 -1955 he allowed the revision, set aside the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer but in view of the fact that the opposite party No. 3 had already got possession of half of the premises be maintained the possession over half, of the opposite party No. 3 and that of the Petitioner over the other half. The opposite party No. 3 then made a representation to the State Government against the order of the Commissioner under Section 7 -F of the Rent Control and Eviction Act. The State Government by its order dated 31 -1 -1956 set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner and restored the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur, dated 16 -6 -1954 and directed the said officer to take necessary action to put the opposite party No. 3 in possession. In these circumstances the present petition was filed by the Petitioner in this Court on 14 -2 -1956. Notices were issued to the opposite parties and counter -affidavits have been filed both on behalf of the State as well as the opposite party No. 3 the allottee.
(3.) THERE is not much dispute with regard to the facts of the case. It is not denied that the Petitioner along with his other son has been living in this premises for a considerable time. It is also admitted that the rent of the premises was being paid to the landlord by the eldest son of the Petitioner. The landlord treated the eldest son as the tenant. It is also not denied that the eldest son sent a telegram to the landlord that he was no longer willing to pay the rent and had terminated the tenancy. It is also admitted that an approach had been made by the opposite party No. 3 to the District Magistrate who instructed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to make an order of allotment and acting upon those instructions the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the premises to the opposite party No. 3. The objections filed by the Petitioner were rejected. Thereafter proceedings under Section 7 -A (3) were taken against the Petitioner. He further reiterated his objections and the objections were rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer; but on revision the order was reversed and the possession of the Petitioner was maintained.;