M.H. Beg, J. - (1.) The Petitioner is the owner of house No. 90/131, Iftikharabad in the City of Kanpur, a part of which he originally occupied in 1942 as a tenant. In 1942, his family consisted of himself, his wife and an infant child. It appears that the needs of his family grew with passage of time. Now, he has not only his wife but also a married daughter and her husband, four daughters with ages ranging from 8 to 16 years, a father -in -law aged about 90 years and a son aged about 22 years living in the same accommodation as he originally occupied. It was even alleged in paragraph 6 of the petition, that his grown up son had to divorce his wife because of shortage of accommodation which consists of a room 12 feet by 8 feet, with a small enclosed attached courtyard, a kitchen, a laterine, a bath and an upper storey with another room, a chhajja and a tin shed on it,
(2.) The Petitioner bought this house in 1960 and avers that he did so as it had another part which could satisfy his expanded needs. At that time, Habib Ahmad Khan opposite party No. 3 was the tenant in the other adjoining part of the house which the Petitioner had bought. The Petitioner alleges that, although he bought the whole house, he did not take proceedings for evicting Habib Ahmad Khan as the tenant had pleaded that he was going away to Pakistan soon and would himself vacate his portion for the Petitioner. Before leaving for Pakistan, however, Habib Ahmad Khan is alleged to have inducted Rahmat Sher Khan opposite party No. 2 as a licensee and left him to be dealt with by the Petitioner. Before Habib Ahmad Khan had vacated the premises and left for Pakistan the Petitioner had filed an application on 4 -2 -1963 for the release of the accommodation in possession of the tenant about to leave. On the other hand, the contesting opposite party, Rahmat Sher Khan, had also filed an application dated 25 -1 -1963 for the allotment of this accommodation to him. In this application, he had stated that he had been occupying the accommodation as a paying guest living with the tenant since 1962. He also claimed relationship with the departing tenant.
(3.) It appears that 16 -2 -1963 was fixed for the hearing of the allotment application of Rahmat Sher Khan. There is a note dated 13 -2 -1963 made by the Rent Control Inspector on the application of the Petitioner under Rule 6 that this application should also be considered on 16 -2 -1963 for a decision on it as the tenant's allotment application was to be heard then. On 16 -2 -1963, the Rent Control Inspector made a report to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, opposite party No. 1, in which he stated that the application for release under Rule 6 had been enquired into by him. He gave the particulars of the accommodation, as detailed above, in the possession of the Petitioner and he stated the number of persons living with the Petitioner as mentioned above. He confirmed that the Petitioner's father -in -law, who was also living with him, was about 90 years in age. He also found that the Petitioner had purchased the house in December, 1960. As against this, the only circumstances mentioned by the Inspector were; that, the Petitioner had not taken any step earlier for getting the accommodation from the tenant and that the Petitioner had given wrong information that his son was married although the son was divorced. Both the circumstances mentioned by the Inspector were capable of explanation by the Petitioner. The Petitioner's explanation of the first circumstance was that Habib Ahmad Khan himself had under -taken to vacate the premises. The second circumstance alleged was that the Petitioner had given wrong information about the married son. It could be said that the Petitioner had not given full information as he had not mentioned that his son had to divorce his wife owing to shortage of accommodation. In other respects, no in -accuracy was found in the Petitioner's case. These were matters which could have been explained if the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had chosen to conduct an inquiry and given an opportunity to the Petitioner to meet the circumstances appearing in the case against the Petitioner. Even if the whole of the Inspector's Report were read, the need of the Petitioner would appear to be genuine.;