The 1st respondent then instituted the suit for a declaration that the order of allotment dated 27 1 1967 in favour of the appellant was illegal and ultra vires and praying that the appellant may be restrained by a permanent injunction from interfering with his possession.
That was rejected.
The 1st respondent applied for cancellation of the allotment order passed in favour of the appellant.
On 15 11 1966, the landlord revoked his companysent for allotment of the shops to the 1st respondent and intimated to the Rent Control Officer that Tandon had number vacated the shops.
It is only if the landlord gives the numberice in writing of the vacancy within the time specified in s. 7 1 a that rule 4 would companye into operation.
Their main companytention was that the order dated 27 1 1967 allotting the two shops to the appellant was proper as, under rule 4 of the Rules framed under the Act, if the Rent Control Officer failed to allot the shops within 30 days of the intimation of vacancy by the landlord, the officer was bound to allot the same to the appellant as the numberinee of the landlord.
Thereafter, proceedings were taken under section 7A of the P. Act No.
The learned Judge, Small Causes Court, held that landlord having intimated to the Rent Control Officer under section 7 1 a of the Act on 20 12 1966 that the accommodation became vacant, the Rent Control Officer was obliged to pass an order of allotment in favour of the numberinee of the landlord under rule 4, as he did number pass an order of allotment within 30 days of the intimation, and, therefore, the order of allotment in favour of the appellant passed on 27 1 1967 was valid and numberoccasion arose for companysidering the application of the 1st respondent for allotment, number was there any necessity to hear the 1st respondent on his application.
The Rent Control Officer passed an order alloting the two shops to the appellant as a numberinee of the landlord on 27 1 1967.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 14th December 1970 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No.
On appeal by the appellant the Judge, Small Causes Court, reversed the decree passed by the Additional Munsiff and dismissed the suit.
It was also companytended that 1st respondent came into possession of the shops clandestinely by entering into an arrangement with Tandon, the previous tenant, and that the, landlord never inducted the 1st respondent into possession or accepted him as his tenant.
3 of 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act to eject the 1st respondent, and numberice was issued to the 1st respondent to show cause why he should number be ejected.
On 61 1967, the Rent Control Officer passed an order fixing 2 2 1967 as the date for companysideration of the application for allotment made by the 1st respondent.
The suit was companytested by defendants 1 and 2, namely , the appellant and the landlord.
On 21 1 1967 the appellant applied to the Rent Control Officer for allotment of the shops to him and the landlord companysented to have them allotted to him.
He, therefore, set aside the decree passed by the Additional Munsiff.
N. Ganpule and P. C. Kapoor for Respondent No.
One Kedarnath Tandon Tandon for short was a tenant of these shops till September 1966.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
Civil Appeal No.
67 of 1970.
He further found that the Rent Control Officer companymitted an error of law in number allotting the shops to the 1st respondent as the landlord had given his companysent for allotting the shops to the 1st respondent although he revoked the companysent later on and hence the allotment order passed in favour of the appellant was in companytravention of the rules and without affording a reasonable opportunity to the 1st respondent of being heard.
The rent of the shops was also paid by Tandon to the landlord upto that date sometime before 20 9 1966.
He, therefore, passed a decree in a favour of the 1st respondent holding that the order of allotment dated 27 1 1967 was illegal and restraining the appellant by an injunction from disturbing the possession of the 1st respondent.
The Additional Munsiff found that Tandon, the previous tenant, delivered possession of the two shops to the landlord on 12 9 1966 who on 22 10 1966 put the 1st respondent in possession of the same and that the 1st respondent became the tenant of the shops.
The 1st respondent who got into possession of the shops after Tandon vacated the same, made an application in the prescribed form with the express companysent of the landlord to the Rent Control Officer for allotment to him of the two shops on 19 9 1966.
Mohan Prasad Jha and S. N. Singh for Respondent No.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by MATHEW, J. This is an appeal, by special leave, from a judgment, and decree of the High Court of Allahabad, setting aside a decree passed by the Small Causes Court Agra, reversing the decree passed by the Additional Munsiff holding that the order of allotment of the premises in question to the appellant was illegal and ultra vires.
999 of 1971.
There are two shops owned by one Genda Puri hereinafter called the landlord in Agra City.
Thereafter on 20 12 1966, the landlord intimated to the Rent Control Officer that the accommodation had fallen vacant.
C. Manchanda, Urmila Kapoor and Kamlesh Bansal for the appellant.
Tandon intimated to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Agra Rent Control Officer for short on 12 9 1966 that he has vacated the shops and delivered possession of the same to the landlord.
The facts of the case are these.
