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, allotting a house belonging to the petitioner to a person other than a nominee of the petitioner. In his affidavit the petitioner states that he is the owner of a house situated in Mohalla Imamganj Babhanaiyan Tola, Mirzapur. He had a tenant by name Ramnath Pandey who defaulted in the payment of rent. The petitioner filed a suit for his ejectment which was decreed. He got possession of a portion of the house in the actual possession of the defaulting tenant. But one Mewalal continued in possession of another portion of the house which had been vacated by tenant Ramnath. On 1-6-56 the petitioner informed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that a portion of the house had fallen vacant and he also applied for permission to occupy it under Rule 6 of the Control of Rent and Eviction Rules. Subsequently, after the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had rejected the petitioner's application the petitioner wrote to that officer nominating one Kalka Prasad as his nominee under Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules, It is an admitted fact that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had not made any allotment within thirty days of receiving the petitioner's intimation of the vacancy of the house. Several persons applied for the allotment of the house. One of them Devi Prasad Misra, brought a recommendation from Sri J. N. Wilson, Member of Parliament. According to the petitioner he is a relation of Ramnath Pande, the petitioner's ex-tenant who was ejected. The petitioner on the 20th August 1956 made a representation before the Rent Control Officer objecting to the house being allotted to Ram Nath Pande or any of his relations. He alleged that Ramnath Pande was trying to get back into the house through his relation. There were other applicants also.
(2.) The Rent Control Officer directed all the rival applicants to file affidavits in respect of their respective claims. When this was done he referred the whole matter to the Housing Advisory Committee, Mirzapur for advice. After receiving the recommendation of this Committee the Rent Control Officer offered to allot the house to three persons in succession, none of whom accepted it.
(3.) Meanwhile on the 5th October, 1956 the petitioner exercised his right under rule 4 of the Control of Rent and Eviction Rules and wrote to the Rent Control Officer demanding that the house should be allotted to his nominee Kalka Prasad. He pointed out that no allotment order had been made for over thirty days after the intimation of the vacancy of the house to the officer.;