- (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution prays that the order passed by the State Government on 20th October, 1967, be quashed, and the respondents be directed to evict the respondent No. 2 in accordance with Section 7-A of U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act.
(2.) The petitioners are the landlords of the premises No. 3 Sheo Charan Lal Road, Allahabad. They had purchased the premises from Sri Ram Swaroop Gupta by a sale-deed, dated 26.3.1962. Sri Gupta, the previous owner had, by a deed, dated 13th October, 1952 leased the premises for a period of 10 years to Ram Agyan Singh, respondent No. 2. Sri Singh used the premises for exhibiting cinematograph films. Disputes having arisen, the previous owner filed suits for recovery of rent as well as for ejectment against Sri Singh. These suits are pending. According to Sr. Singh, the period of the lease commenced in May, 1955. Even so the period of lease came to an end in May, 1965. The present landlords instituted an application under Rule 6 read with Section 7 of the Rent Control Act for release of the accommodation in their favour. On 3.12.1965 the Additional District Magistrate allowed the application and permitted the petitioners to take the premises into their personal occupation on the finding that the premises were in illegal occupation of Sri Singh. Sri Singh filed a representation before the State Government against that order under Section 7-F of the Rent Control Act. The petition was rejected on 10th January, 1966, on the ground that there was no provision for any interference by the Government with orders passed by the District authorities under Rule 6.
(3.) On 4th December, 1965, the petitioners filed an application for the eviction of Sri Singh under Section 7-A of the Rent Control Act. The second respondent filed a detailed objection. The Additional District Magistrate heard both parties at length and on 18.6.1966 directed the issue of a notice under clause (ii) of Section 7-A for the eviction of Sri Singh. He held that Sri Singh was in an unauthorised occupation since the inception of his tenancy because he never obtained an order of allotment under the Act and that, in the circumstances of the case, he was not inclined to give benefit of the proviso to Section 7-A to Sri Singh.;