S.S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the quashing of an order of Rent Control and Eviction Officer Kanpur (respondent No. 1) dated 10-9-1956, declaring a godown belonging to the petitioner as vacant for allotment, and for a writ in the nature of mandmus commanding the aforesaid Officer to withdraw the impugned order and not to continue the allotment proceedings in respect of the house.
(2.) The petitioner, Abdul Shakoor is the owner and landlord of the premises in dispute known as No. 95/32 Pechbagh Kanpur. The respondent No. 1 is the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur and the respondent No. 2 the District Magistrate of Kanpur. The respondents 3, 4, 5 and 6 are persons who made applications for allotment of the house and are rival claimants.
(3.) The relevant facts, as stated in the petitioner's affidavit, are these. The property in dispute is a godown which is a part of the premises No. 95/32 Pechbagh Kanpur mentioned above. The petitioner is in possession of a portion of the premises and residing in it. There was some dispute between various persons and the petitioner about this godown, which is not relevant to the present controversy. It ended in the petitioner's favour on 10-5-1955 when the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Kanpur, hereinafter to be called R.C. and E.O., passed an order releasing the godown in the petitioner's favour in the following terms: "Reference your application dated 3-5-1958 regarding allotment of godown, you are hereby informed that the same is released in your favour for your personal use and that you will please not let it out for a period of three years." The petitioner had for a long time been desirous of starting a suitable business. He was advised that the hide business would be a good field for investment and so he decided to make plans for starting his own individual business as a commission agent in the sale of hides. He could not carry out his plans for want of suitable accommodation. Subsequently the heavy litigation in respect of this godown swallowed up the petitioner's small fortune. He realised that, lacking in both finance and experience, he would not be able to carry on the bide business by himself alone. He therefore entered into a partnership with two persons, Rizwan Ullah and Shamshul Huda. On 5-7-1956 the parties executed a partnership deed, which is Annexure 'A' of the petitioner's affidavit. The aforesaid two gentlemen are experienced in this business which they had long been carrying on under the name and style of the East India Hide Co., at Kanpur. This business was replaced by the new partnership firm consisting of the petitioner and the other two. The new firm was also given the same name -- East India Hide Co., to avail fully of the goodwill and reputation of the old firm. But one Syed Ahmad, who had carried on a dispute with the petitioner in respect of the godown and had consequently become hostile to him, set up another person for filing an application before the R.C. and E.O. for the allotment of the godown. This person, whose name is Abdul Hamid made a false allegation before the authorities that the petitioner was not utilising the godown. The District Magistrate Kanpur passed an ex parte order on 16-1-1956, allotting the godown to Abdul Hamid. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and his family for their eviction under Section 7A of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. But the petitioner filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad, who set aside the allotment order and directed that if it was considered necessary to take further allotment proceedings in respect of the godown, "this should be done in accordance with law". Subsequently four persons filed rival applications for the allotment of the godown. The petitioner resisted the allotment and filed an affidavit before the R.C. and E.O. in which lie stated that the godown was not vacant nor likely to fall vacant. He further pointed out in this affidavit that he was the owner in possession of the godown under a valid and legal allotment order, and carrying on his partnership business in a portion of it. He contended that the R.C. and E.O. had no jurisdiction to allot the premises which were not vacant. He filed before the officer the original partnership deed together with a certificate of the Registrar of firms, Uttar Pradesh, to prove that the firms had been duly registered under Section 68 of the Indian Partnership Act.;