S.S.Dhavan, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the quashing of an order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Saharanpur, respondent No. 1 dated 10-9-56 cancelling a previous allotment order made by him in favour of the petitioner. There is a further prayer for a writ of mandamus restraining the Rent Control and Eviction Officer from enforcing his order of 9th September or ejecting the petitioner from the shop allotted to him. The facts, as stated in the petitioner's affidavit, are these: He is a tenant in possession of shop No. 15/2990 in Saharanpur. It is jointly owned by Haji Mohammed Akhtar and Mohammed Athar, respondents 2 and 3. This shop was previously in the tenancy of one Dr. Mangal Sen. He discontinued his tenancy. The petitioner came to know of this fact and made an application for allotment of the shop to himself. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the shop to him by his order dated 27-4-1956. The petitioner obtained possession of the shop in May, 1956, (from the record it appears that on 3-5-1956 he informed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that he had occupied the shop. This letter was received by that Officer on 4th May). Subsequently, the landlord made a complaint that the petitioner had obtained the allotment order by fraud. But the petitioner was given no opportunity of meeting these allegations. On one occasion the Rent Control and Eviction Officer sent for the petitioner and put him a number of questions. These are related in detail in paragraph 6 of the affidavit. He was asked whether the furniture in the shop belonged to him. The petitioner replied that he had bought it from Dr. Sen, the out-going tenant. The petitioner then showed to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer his stock of glass bangles. On another date that Officer asked the petitioner whether he had paid any pugri money. The petitioner denied this. He was also asked who had given him the key of the shop and he renlied that he had received it from the landlord. The petitioner states that this was the only "enquiry" held, as far as he was concerned. His grievance is that he was given no opportunity to meet any case of fraud or collusion or mis-representation. He was not even informed or given particulars of the specific acts of conduct constituting the offences imputed to him. In September, 1956, the petitioner received the impugned order cancelling his allotment. He learnt from this order that some one had informed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the petitioner had some other shop. If that Officer had given him any opportunity he would have explained to him that he was mis-informed and that had no other shop. In paragraphs 9 and 10 the petitioner explains that, having no shop of his own, he had made some kind of an informal arrangement with a man called Noor Hassari to allow him to sit in his (Noor Hassan's) shop. His relations with Noor Hasan were not happy as the latter was always taking advantage of the fact that the petitioner had nowhere to go. This compelled him to seek an allotment of some shop in his own name. He would have brought all these facts to the notice of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer if he had been given an opportunity.
(2.) Aggrieved by the order cancelling the previous allotment the petitioner has come to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution and prays for the reliefs mentioned above.
(3.) The petition is opposed both by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and by the landlords and Counter-affidavits have been filed by both sets of respondents. The landlords allege that the petitioner obtained an allotment order fradulently and in collusion with the previous tenant Dr. Mangal Sen. They further shite that no intimation of vacancy had been given either by the landlords or by the tenant to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The petitioner went to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer with an application alleging that the tenant did not wish to continue his tenancy and that it had been vacated by him. This was a false statement. On its basis the shop was allotted to him. When the landlord came to know of this fact, they made an application dated 5-5-1956, before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer giving the correct facts and stating that Dr. Mangal Sen had mat vacated the shop nor handed over the key to the landlord. Thereafter the Rent Control Eviction Officer sent notice of the application to the petitioner. He also examined the petitioner's witnesses, heard arguments of both the parties at length inspected the shop in the presence of the parties and found that the medicines and furniture of Dr. Mangal Sen was still lying about in the shop. He then passed the order 10-9-1956 cancelling the allotment made on 27-4-1956.;