On June 18, 1966, the Additional District Magistrate directed issue of numberice under clause 2 of s. 7 A, why respondent No.
V. Gupte, J. P. Goyal and S. M. Jain, for the appellants in both, the appeals K. Garg, S. C. Aggarwal, S. S. Bhatnagar and V. J. Francis, for the respondent in C. A. No.
583/71 Dixit and O. P. Rana, for the respondent Nos.
On December 4, 1965, the appellants filed an application for eviction of respondent No.
Civil Appeal No.
1,3 and 4.
2 was number liable to be evicted from the premises.
The original owner of the premises was one Ram Swaroop Gupta.
Civil Appeal No 583 of 1971 Appeal from the Judgement order dated the 28th October, 1970 .of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No.
2370 of 1969 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MATHEW J. The appellants filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Allahabad praying that the order passed by the State Government on October 20, 1967, allowing a revision filed by the respondent be quashed and possession of the premises in question be given to them under s. 7 A of the U. P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 hereinafter ,called the Act .
2370 of 1969 Appeal from the judgement and order dated the 22nd May, 1969 of the Allahabad High Court in Spl.
It is against this order that this appeal has been filed on the basis of a certificate granted under Article 133 1 b of the Constitution.
He leased the premises to M s Pioneer Exhibitors and Distributors Limited.
2 filed an appeal against the order.
They used the premises for exhibiting cinema.
That lease terminated by efflux of time on June 30, 1952.
The State Government allowed that application on October 20, 1967 holding that respondent No.
Respondent No.
The respondent had been paying the rent to Ram Swaroop Gupta and to the appellants after the sale by him to the appellants.
But there was numberorder allotting the accommodation to him under S. 7 2 of the Act.
Gupta, thereafter, leased the premises by a deed dated October 13, 1952 for a period of 10 years to Ram Agyan Singh, respondent No.
2 also used the premises for exhibiting cinematography films.
The appellants purchased the premises in question from Ram Swaroop Gupta by a sale deed dated March, 26, 1962.
That in effect said that the respondent was running a cinema under a licence in the premises from 1952, that the District Magistrate, when he granted the licence, was satisfied that respondent No.
Respondent No.
Thereafter they filed an application under s. 7 of the Act read with rule 6 made under the Act for release of the accommodation in their favour.
343 of 1968.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
He companyfirmed the cider of the Additional District Magistrate.
2 to the State Government was rejected on January 10, 1966 on the ground that there was numberprovision for any interference by Government with the order.
Disputes having arisen between the parties, Gupta filed suits for recovery of rent as well as for ejectment against respondent No.
A learned Single Judge of the Court quashed the order.
Appeal No.
2 was in lawful occupation and that, in these circumstances, he was entitled to the benefit of the proviso to s. 7 A 1 of the Act and was number liable to be evicted from the premises.
82 of 1970.
2, thereafter, filed an application for revision under s. 7 F of the Act before the State Government against the order.
The representation against this order filed by respondent No.
On January 20, 1968, the State Government companymunicated to the parties a summary of the reasons on the basis of which the order had been passed.
It was to quash this order that the appellants filed the writ petition before the High Court.
That was on the basis that the premises were in illegal occupation of respondent No.
On December 3, 1965, the Additional District Magis trate allowed the application and permitted the appellants to take possession of the premises.
2 went up in revision against the order to the Additional Commissioner.
Thereafter, the Additional District Magistrate passed the order for eviction.
The division Bench reversed the order of the learned Single Judge.
Respondent No.
