K. C. Agrawal, J. - (1.) THIS is petition under Article 226 of the Constitution directed against the judgment of the I Addl. District Judge, Allahabad dated March 28, 1978.
(2.) PREMISES No. 12, Tagore Town were in the tenancy of one Ft. Lt. A. R. Solanki. The house was vacated by him. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer thereafter notified the vacancy and a number of persons applied for allotment. Amongst those were R. C. Grover, respondent 1, Smt. Girja Shukla and Sri Gyan Prakash. By an order dated May 2, 1977 the premises was allotted to Smt. Girja Shukla. Against the aforesaid order, a revision was filed by R. C. Grover, respondent No. 1. Another revision was filed by Gyan Prakash, who was also an applicant for allotment. These revisions were allowed by the District Judge on July 21, 1977. By the said order the District Judge set aside the allotment order made in favour of Smt. Girja Shukla and remanded the case to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to make an order of allotment afresh. On August 6, 1977 Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited known as "IFFCO" applied for the allotment of the accommodation in its favour. The petitioner claimed that it was a society established for "Public purpose" and required the accommodation for residence of its officers which was also a public purpose is entitled to the benefit of category No. 1 of rule 11 of the rules framed under U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer held that the petitioner was a Cooperative Society of cultivators and that its purpose being limited and not for general public, it did not fall in the first category and as such was not entitled to claim allotment on the basis of sub-rule (1) of rule 11. In his opinion, as an application for the release of the premises in the tenancy of respondent 1 had been filed by its owner and landlord under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the respondent 1 being a person falling in category No. 2 was entitled to allotment. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, a revision was filed by the petitioner before the District Judge. The revision was transferred to the I Additional District Judge, Allahabad who dismissed it on March 28, 1978. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present petition was filed by the petitioner in this Court. Shri K. M. Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner raised two contentions before me. The first was that the petitioner being engaged in manufacturing fertiliser which was a commodity for public consumption, the purpose of the residence of the employees of the petitioner was a public purpose and as such the courts below committed an error in not treating the petitioner to be entitled to the benefit of sub-rule (1) of rule 11. The second submission was that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as well as the Additional District Judge erred in holding that R. C. Grover, respondent 1 was entitled to be kept in the second category and as such had a preferential claim of allotment over the petitioner. The petitioner is a Cooperative Society having its registered office at New Delhi. In persuance of the provisions of the Multi-Unit Cooperative Societies Act, (Act No. VI of 1942), the Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Society, New Delhi was registered as a Multi-Unit Co-operative Society under the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act as extended to the Union Territory of New Delhi. The objects of the petitioner are to promote economic interests of its members by undertaking manufacture of chemical fertilisers and allied products/bye-products and their conversion, storage, transportation and marketing. The membership of the petitioner is open to :- (i) National Cooperative Federation of agriculture credit/marketing/processing/supply and other agricultural cooperative societies ; (ii) State level cooperative federations of agricultural credit / marketing / processing/supply and other agricultural cooperative societies ; (iii) District, regional and primary cooperative credit/marketing/processing/supply and other agricultural cooperative societies including Cane Unions ; (iv) Primary agricultural cooperative credit, service, multi purpose, cane irrigation, farming societies and other village agricultural societies ; (v) National Cooperative Development Corporation ; (vi) Government of India.
(3.) THE authorised share capital of the petitioner was Rs. 200/- crores made-up of the following categories ;- (i) 16,000 shares with face value of Rs. 1 lakh each, to be allotted generally to the Government of India, the National Cooperative Development Corporation, National/State/Regional/Federations and large processing cooperatives such as cooperative sugar mills etc. ; (ii) 20,000 shares with face value of Rs. 10,000 each to be allotted generally to District and Primary Marketing / Processing/Supply and other Cooperative Societies including Cane Unions ; (iii) 2,00,000 shares with face value of Rs. 1,000/- each to be allotted generally to Primary Societies at the village level. Provided that the Societies mentioned in sub-clause (i) which have taken at least one share of Rs. 1 lakh and societies mentioned in sub-clause (ii) which have taken at least one share of Rs. 10,000/- are eligible to take shares of lower denomination as well. Provided also that Societies mentioned in sub-clause (ii) and (iii) are eligible for the allotment of higher denomination shares. In the back ground of the facts, stated above, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner was engaged in the production of fertilisers which was a commodity needed by public for production of foodgrains and others, the courts below should have held that the premises required by the petitioner for the residence of its officers was one for public purpose.;