S. S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution impugning the legality of an order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur dated 7-11-1955 allotting certain premises to Jagdish Prasad respondent no. 2 and also of an order passed by the same officer under Sec. 7-A (iii) handing over possession of the aforesaid premises with police aid to the allottee. The petitioner states in his affidavit that since 1944 he has been the tenant of the accommodation consisting of a shop and a godown situate in premise no. 81199 Cooperganj, Kanpur. Uptil 1952 the petitioner carried on a business in the name and style of Chandra Oil Factory in which his younger brother was his partner. The rent was paid by the petitioner who was the real tenant although receipts were issued in the name of Chandra Oil Factory. In 1952 this business was closed and the petitioner commenced a new business of commission agents in the name and style of Durga Prasad Kashi Ram. The rent receipts however continued to be issued in the name of Chandra Oil Factory and the rent paid by the petitioner. The accommodation consists of a shop and a godown but there is a single tenancy carrying a monthly rental of Rs. 47|8/-.
(2.) The petitioner alleges that Jagdish Prasad respondent no. 2 in collusion with a clerk of the landlord fraudulently represented before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the godown had fallen vacant. On enquiry the inspector made a report that the godown was under the tenancy of the Chandra Oil Factory and that it was found locked at the time of the enquiry and had been so for the last six months. On the faith of the fraudulent representations of Jagdish Prasad the Rent Control Officer passed an order allotting the premises to him in these terms: "Landlord's representative says that the old tenant has left. It is in a dilapidated condition. The applicant says that he will get it repaired if allotted to him. Allotted. Sd. S.P. Sharma . . . . 7-11-1956."
(3.) The petitioner alleges that the allotment was made without any notice to him and that he had no knowledge of it. He further complains that even after the allotment no notice under Sec. 7-A of the Rent Control and Eviction Act was served on him nor did he have any knowledge of the proceedings under that section, but after the possession had been delivered to the allottee Jagdish Prasad he discovered that his lock had disappeared from the godown and had been replaced by another. He immediately lodged a report with the police and also inspected the file in the office of the Rent Control Officer. He then discovered that Jagdish Prasad respondent no. 2 had obtained allotment in his favour by making fraudulent representations and also obtained possession through Police Aid. On 7-4-1956 the petitioner filed his objections before the Rent Control Officer praying for setting aside of the allotment order but that officer rejected the application in these words: "Parties present. I do not see any force in the representation of Pooran Chand which is rejected. If he feels aggrieved he can go up in revision. Papers filed. Sd. S. P. Sharma.";