Mootham, C.J. - (1.) THIS appeal raises a question of some importance with regard to the construction of Section 7A(1) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The appeal arises in the following circumstances:
(2.) THE third Respondent is the owner of a shed in Belanganj, Agra City. That shed was occupied by one Hanuman Prasad as the licensee of the owner. On 19 -9 -55, Hanuman Prasad died and on the 8th August the third Respondent applied to the RC and EO for permission to occupy the shed as he wanted to convert it into a pucca building. At that time the shed was in the occupation of the Appellant Smt. Ganga Devi, who is the widowed sister of Hanuman Prasad. There is a dispute as to whether this lady had lived in the shed with her brother prior to the latter's death, but there is no serious dispute that she has been in occupation after his death. On 3 -9 -56, the RC and EO purporting to act Under Section 7A(1) of the Act, sent a notice to the Appellant calling upon her to show cause why she should not be evicted from the premises, The Appellant questioned the validity of this notice, but by an order dated 7 -11 -56, the RC and EO held the Appellant to be in unauthorised occupation of the premises and directed her to vacate the latter by the 16th November. By the same order the RC and EO directed that the premises be released to the owner "who will not let it out to any one as required Under Section 7(2) of the Act." The Appellant applied to the Commissioner for the revision of the RC and EO's order but that application was dismissed on 14 -2 -57. The Appellant then filed a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution in which she challenged the validity of the orders of the RC and EO and the Commr. dated respectively 7 -11 -56 and 14 -2 -57 and prayed that they be quashed by a writ of certiorari. That petition was dismissed by the learned Judge and the Appellant now appeals. The order of the RC and EO dated 3 -9 -56, calling upon her to show cause why she should not be evicted from the premises was made by the RC and EO in purported exercise of his powers Under Section 7A(1) of the Act. That sub -section (omitting the porviso with which we are not now concerned) reads thus: 7A. (1) Where in pursuance of an order of the District Magistrate under Sub -section (2) of Section 7 the vacancy of any accommodation is required to be reported and is not so reported or where an order requiring any accommodation to be let or not to be let has been duly passed Under Sub -section (2) of Section 7 and the District Magistrate believes or has reason to believe that any person has in contravention of the said order, occupied the accommodation or any part thereof, he may call upon the person in occupation to show cause within a time to be fixed by him why he should not be evicted therefrom.
(3.) IT is contended by the third Respondent that under this sub -section when the District Magistrate has reason to believe that a person is in unauthorised occupation of any accommodation, he may call upon that person to show cause why he should not be evicted therefrom if either of two conditions is fulfilled, those conditions being, in the words of the sub -section. (i)Where in pursuance of an order of the District Magistrate Under Sub -section (2) of Section 7 the vacancy of any accommodation is required to be reported and is not so reported. or (ii)Where any order requiring any accommodation to be let or not to be let has been duly passed Under Sub -section (2) of Section 7.;