- (1.) This is an appeal from an order of Mr. justice Jagdish Sahai dated 30-10-1957, dismissing a petition u/ Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) The Appellant is the owner of certain premises in Kanpur which were in the occupation of a tenant. On 22 5-1957, the tenant was ejected through the proceedings in the civil court, and the Appellant thereupon applied to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for the release of the premises in his own favour. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, however, by an allotment order dated 15-7-1957, allotted the premises to the third Respondent. By that time the Appellant had entered into the possession of the premises, and an order was subsequently made Under Section 7A of the Act requiring him to vacate them. The Appellant sought to have this order revised by the Commissioner on the ground that the order of allotment had been wrongly made inasmuch as the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had failed to consider the Appellant's own need for the premises for his personal occupation. That application in revision was dismissed by the Commr. by an order dated 12-10-1957. The Appellant then filed a petition in this Court u/Art. 226 of the Constitution in which he prayed that the allotment order and the order of the Commr. be quashed by writ of certiorari on the ground that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had not complied with the provisions of R. 6 of the Rules framed under the Act. The petition was dismissed by Mr. Justice Jagdish Sahai by the order which is the subject of the present appeal. The learned Judge took the view that when making the allotment order, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had in fact fully considered the needs of the Appellant.
(3.) It appears that on 15-7-1954, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer made two orders. By the first of these he rejected the Appellant's application for the release of the premises in his own favour, and by the second he directed that the premises be allotted to the third Respondent. No copy of the order made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejecting the Appellant's application is before us, but it appears from paragraph 6 of the affidavit accomanying the petition that the Appellant had stated that he needed the premises for karkhana purposes, but that as the premises in question were on the first floor of the building the Rent Control and Eviction Officer did not accept the Appellant's statement as correct and was not satisfied that the Appellant genuinely needed the premises. The same view was taken by the Addl. Commr. in his order of 12-10-1957. In the course of his order the Addl. Commr. says: The Learned Counsel for the opposite(sic) party replies that this is a very small accommodation about half a mile away from the residence and the workshop of the applicant, and is not suitable for the needs of his business. It is also pointed out that the landlord did not disclose this need in his application for release, but mentioned it only in the course of the enquiry. Considering all these facts, I do not see sufficient reason to differ from the finding of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the need of the landlord is not genuine.;