On May 22, 1957, the R.C. E. Officer declared that Gokal Chand the previous tenant had vacated the shop.
The appellant then instituted a suit under s. 5 4 of the Act for the enhancement of reasonable annual rent.
He accordingly declared that the shop was vacant.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated May 14, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No.
An appeal against that order to the District Court was dismissed.
The appellant submitted an application under s. 3A of the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 947, to the House Allotment Officer on whom the power of the District Magistrate was companyferred for increase in rent.
The C. E. Officer passed an order observing that the tenant did number lead any evidence to show that he had number vacated the shop and it was clear on the evidence that the tenant was number in occupation of the shop and had let it out to one Alladia.
That Officer passed an order increasing the rent payable by the tenant on the ground that there was a new companystruction.
Dehra Dun, for an order in ejectment on the plea that Gokal Chand had companymitted default in paying rent.
34/2, Dispensary Road, Dehra Dun, which belongs to Munni Devi the first appellant in this appeal.
In Chaube Jagdish Prasad v. Ganga Prasad Chaturvedi 1 , the respondent had obtained on rent the accommodation in dispute from the appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Section 3 of the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 194 7, imposes certain restrictions on eviction of tenants.
and that Rawel Chand was in illegal occupation of the shop.
Munni Devi applied to the Rent Control Eviction Officer.
899 of 1966.
Yogeshwar Prasad and Harder Singh, for the appellants.
4136 of 1964.
The Trial Court held that Gokal Chand had at numbertime vacated the shop, numberr was his tenancy terminated.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. Gokal Chand first respondent in this appeal was a tenant of shop No.
N. Anand, for the respondents.
He accordingly made an order declaring that Gokal Chand was an allottee and a tenant of the shop.
A second appeal to the High Court was also unsuccessful.
Gokal Chand then filed a civil suit in the Court of the Munsif.
To that suit were impleaded Munni Devi and Kishorilal as party defendants.
In this appeal with special leave, companynsel for Munni Devi and Kishorilal urges that the order of the civil companyrt was without jurisdiction.
The R.C. E. Officer allotted the shop to Kishorilal.
and was entitled to remain in occupation of the same.
Kishorilal then applied to the R,C. E. Officer that the shop allotted to him was in the illegal occupation of Rawel Chand s o Gokal Chand.
