O.H.Mootham, C.J. - (1.) This is an appeal against an order of Mr. Justice James dated the 17th September, 1958, dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) The appellant is the owner of two adjacent houses, one of which was in the occupation of a tenant. On the 17th October, 1956, the tenant vacated that house and made over possession of it to the appellant. Two days later on the 19th October, the appellant informed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the premises had fallen vacant, and at the same time he asked that they be released in his favour as they were needed by him for his personal occupation. On the 31st October the appellant appeared before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and his statement was recorded. No action was however taken by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and on the 24th November the appellant wrote to that officer informing him that he had occupied the premises and that they should not be allotted to any other person. On the 7th December, 1955, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer made an order rejecting the appellant's application that the premises be released in his favour, and by an order dated the 8th December he allotted the premises to the fourth respondent. Thereafter the appellant moved the Commissioner and the State Government for the reversal of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer's order allotting the premises to the fourth respondent. These efforts were unsuccessful, and the appellant then filed a petition in this Court in which he challenged the validity of the order of allotment on a number of grounds. The learned Judge dismissed the petition and the appellant now appeals.
(3.) The only contention advanced in this Court is that the order of allotment in favour of the fourth respondent is invalid as the Rent Control and Eviction Officer must make an allotment order within thirty days of the receipt of a notice by the landlord that the premises have fallen vacant, and that at the expiry of that period he ceases to have power to do so.;