D.S. Mathur, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Kailash Chandra Jain and two others for the issue of a writ, direction or order to quash the order dated 26-12-1958 and also order dated 1-5-59 of the State Government passed on the review application (Annexure 'M' to the petitioners' affidavit); and to direct it to decide the application for review dated 14-2-1959 (in the petition the date has been wrongly typed as 24-2-1959) made by the present petitioners for review of the order passed on 26-12-1958, whereby permission was granted to Bihari Lal, respondent no. 4, to sue for ejectment of the petitioners who were occupying his house as tenants.
(2.) The record of the case has become bulky, but there no longer exists any dispute on the material facts of the case. The questions raised by the petitioners now amount to almost pure questions of law.
(3.) The facts of the case can be summarised as below:- Bihari Lal, respondent No. 4, is the landlord and owner of house No. 12, Sheo Charan Lal Road, Allahabad, residential portion of which on the first floor is in the tenancy of Kailash Chandra Jain petitioner no. 1, on a monthly rent of Rs. 52.50 nP. Firm Hinga Mal Kalyan Chand Sumer Chand, petitioner no. 2, carries on business in a part of the ground floor towards the back of the house. The Firm carries on business through its proprietor, Kailash Chandra Jain, petitioner no. 1, on payment of a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-. The front portion of the ground floor is in the occupation of 'Naveen Vastralaya,' petitioner no. 3, which carries on cloth business in this portion on payment of a monthly rent of Rs. 35/-. Another portion of the house was previously in the tenancy of Behari Lal, barber, who is since dead. This Behari Lal is not a party to the present proceeding. Bihari Lal, respondent no. 4, made an application before the Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad, for grant of permission under Sec. 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, to sue for ejectment of all the four tenants on the ground that he required the house for his own use and occupation. The application was registered as case No. 194 of 1956. The Additional District Magistrate did not grant the permission (vide his order dated 30-5-1957). Bihari Lal then moved a revision application before the Commissioner under Sec. 3 (2) of the Act against the refusal to grant permission as contemplated by Sec. 3. Bihari Lal, respondent no. 4, adduced or attempted to adduce before the Commissioner certain additional documentary evidence to show that the Additional District Magistrate was acting under a misapprehension that the respondent was being ejected from 17, S. C. Basu Road, on the ground of nonpayment of rent, and also to show that the decree for his ejectment from that house had been confirmed by the appellate court. The case of the petitioners is that no copy of the two documents filed along with an affidavit were supplied to them. These documents were meant to show that the permission granted under Sec. 3 to the owner of 17, S.C. Basu Road, was on the ground that the owner wanted that accommodation for his own personal use. The Additional Commissioner dismissed the revision application under order dated 27-7-1957. Thereafter Bihari Lal moved an application under Sec. 7-F of the Act before the State Government. This application is dated 24-8-1957 (Annexure 'G' to the petitioners' affidavit). The State Government summoned the record of the Additional District Magistrate, and not of the Additional Commissioner; and it appears that from the second supplementary counter-affidavit of respondent no. 4 that a report of the Additional District Magistrate was also called for.;