Shankar Dayal Khare, J. - (1.) This is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the prayer is that the order dated 27 -10 -1965, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad, be quashed by means of a writ in the nature of certiorari.
(2.) The undisputed facts leading to this petition, briefly stated, are that the Petitioner is the landlord and the owner of house No. 10, Lowther Road, Allahabad, consisting of several rooms and verandahs. In the year 1962 the landlord permitted N.P. Srivastava, opposite party No. 2, to occupy two living rooms in that building as a tenant thereof. For sometime thereafter both the landlord and the tenant shared the common bathroom and latrine, but in the year 1964 the Petitioner constructed a store, a kitchen, a bathroom, a latrine and a courtyard and allowed the opposite party to use the same. There arose a dispute between the landlord and the tenant with regard to the use of a verandah and the opposite party No. 2 moved the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad, by application dated 6 -7 -1965 (vide Annexure I) that the portion of the house which was constructed prior to the year 1951 be allotted to him so that his occupancy be regularised. The Petitioner filed an objection before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 7 -9 -1965 mainly on the grounds that the accommodation cannot be split up into two portions, that in view of the provisions of Rule 7 of the Control of Rent and Eviction Rules a portion of the house could not be allotted to opposite party No. 2 and that at the time the application had been made there was no vacancy inasmuch as the landlord was occupying his portion of the house while opposite party No. 2 was in the occupation of the other. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, by means of the impugned order, allotted the portion of the old building which was already in the occupation of opposite party No. 2 to opposite party No. 2 on the ground that it was an old construction and the provisions of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) would apply. He mentioned in his order that the portion in occupation of opposite party No. 2 consisted of two rooms, front verandah, a bath and latrine, an enclosure in front of the verandah and an enclosed verandah towards the courtyard of the landlord. He, however, passed the allotment order only in respect of the two living rooms and one inner verandah which, in his judgment, were constructions, made prior to the year 1951, and did not pass any order in respect of the front verandah, bathroom, latrine and the enclosure which according to his judgment were constructions made after the year 1951.
(3.) The contention of the Petitioner is that the allotment order is bad because - - (i) its effect was to split up the tenancy as also the accommodation in possession of opposite party No. 2, and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no jurisdiction to allot part of the accommodation to opposite party No. 2, and (ii) it contravened the provisions of Rules 7 and 8 of the Control of Rent and Eviction Rules. No counter affidavit was filed by opposite party No. 2. A request was made by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 for adjournment of the case to enable opposite party No. 2 to file a counter affidavit. That request was not granted.;