Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the orders dated 5 -1 -1966 14 -2 -1966 and 23 -5 -1966 passed by the Respondents under the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act.
(2.) The dispute relates to bungalow No. 78/142, Lukerganj, Allahabad. Stat. Ira Mittra, Respondent No. 4, is the landlady of this bungalow. One S.M. Dutta was occupying this bungalow on payment of a monthly rent of Rs. 120/ -. He vacated it on 11 -12 -1964. He informed the landlady as well as the Rent Control and Eviction Officer of the vacancy. On 19 -12 -1964 the Petitioner applied for the allotment of this Lungalow. After enquiries the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted this bungalow to the Petitioner on 6 -1 -1965. Respondent No. 4 did not deliver possession to the Petitioner. The Petitioner thereupon filed an application under Sec. 7 -A(i) of Rent Control and Eviction Act. The officer issued notice to the landlady. The fourth Respondent made an application to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on or about 15th January, 1965 stating that after the house had been vacated by Sri S.M. Dutta, she herself has occupied it and hence it was not available for allotment. She stated that the house had been given to Sri S.M. Dutta on the understanding that he would vacate it whenever it is required by the landlady. No order seems to have been passed on this application and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer issued a notice under Clause (ii) of Sec. 7 -A on 5 -2 -1965 requiring the landlady to file objections, if any, upto 11 -2 -1965. No objections were filed. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by way of precaution directed the Rent Control Inspector to contact the landlady. The Inspector reported that the landlady had gone to Calcutta and that the house in dispute was in occupation of one S.K. Afukerji for about a month without any allotment order. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer issued a notice under Clause (iii) of Sec. 7 -A on 18 -2 -1965. Against this issue of the notice, the landlady went up in revision which was allowed on 19 -4 -1965. It was held that the notice under Clause (i) of Sec. 7 -A was not properly served upon the landlady. The case was, therefore, remanded back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. On remand a fresh notice under Sec. 7 -A(1) was issued. On or about 20th May, 1965 the landlady filed an application for the release of the accommodation in her favour. The Petitioner filed objections. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed the Inspector, to make a spot enquiry and report. In his report the Inspector stated that the landlady had been married and her husband was posted in Lucknow and that her need does not appear to be genuine. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 19 -6 -1965 rejected the application for release. He held that the landlady had not been in possession of any portion of the house while it was in the tenancy of Sri S.M. Dutta and hence Rule 7 was not attracted. He also found that the landlady has been married and will have to remain with her husband outside Allahabad. Her father used to live with her brother in Muththiganj house and he would find it more convenient to remain there, rather than to remain in the house all alone specially when he was an old and sick person. He held that the house had been let out to Sri S.M. Dutta on rent and under these circumstances the need of the landlady was not genuine. He further found that there was no misrepresentation, fraud or concealment of facts in procuring the allotment order. He, therefore, dismissed the release application as also the objections filed by the landlady to the allotment order.
(3.) Dissatisfied the landlady went up in revision. By an order dated 5 -1 -1966, the revision was allowed and the matter was again remanded to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The learned Additional Commissioner held that one of the grounds urged by the landlady in support of her application for release was that she was a student and needed the house in order to study at Allahabad and carry on her studies and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had not considered this ground. He also held that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was bound to record a finding on this ground. He consequently set aside the Rent Control and Eviction Officer's order and remanded the case for determining this ground for the release of the house. This time the Petitioner felt aggrieved and filed a revision before the State Government under Sec. 7 -F. On 14 -2 -1966 the State Government passed an order that it was unable to interfere in the matter.;