- (1.) An accommodation was allotted in favour of the Petitioner by the Rent Control and Eviction Office, Faizabad. In pursuance of that order of allotment he was put in possession of the accommodation in proceedings Under Sec. 7 -A of the UP (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, after the ejectment of opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 1, however, came to this Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution with the result that the allotment in favour of the Petitioner was quashed. It is in these circumstances that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has now sought to eject the Petitioner from the premises illegally occupied by him in order to put opposite party No. 1 back into possession.
(2.) The only point urged on behalf of the Petitioner is that there is no provision of law under which the Petitioner could be ejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer while allotting the accommodation to the Petitioner acted as a quasi -judicial body. That order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was held to be without jurisdiction and the order was quashed by this Court. As the order in pursuance of the execution of which the Petitioner was put in possession of the premises by ejecting opposite party No. 1 was an order which the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no jurisdiction to pass, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has the inherent jurisdiction, being a quasi -judicial tribunal to restore the possession of Respondent No. 1 by ejecting the Petitioner in order to set right the wrong that had been done in passing that illegal order and which had been found to have been passed without jurisdiction by this Court. Moreover, the order appears to be so eminently just in the circumstances that the Court should not interfere in any case.
(3.) The petition has no force and is summarily dismissed.;