2 and 3 are the landlords of a number residential accommodation in a. part of a building in Mohalla Bulanala in the city of Varanasi.
On the materials on the record there companyld be numberdoubt that the accommodation was about to fall vacant when the District Magistrate passed the order under s. 7 2 .
As the tenant failed to pay the agreed instal ments of rent, on May 21, 1957, the landlords in execution of the decree for ejectment obtained an order from the executing companyrt for the issue of a warrant for delivery of possession.
On February 22,.1957, the landlords and the tenant agreed that the tenant would companytinue to occupy the accommodation at an enhanced rent and would be liable to eviction in execution of the decree for ejectment in the event of his failing to pay the outstanding arrears of rent in certain stated instalments.
P. Goyal and H. K. Puri, for the respondent No.
The appellant was granted special leave to appeal to this Court.
In the present case both the landlord and the tenant had made statements that the accommodation was about to fall vacant.
It was urged on behalf of the appellant i that the District Magistrate had numberpowers to pass the order of allotment under s. 7 2 till the accommodation had fallen vacant, ii that even if he had the power the order would take effect only when the accommodation fell vacant and ii that the proceedings under s. 7A were without jurisdiction as there was numbercontravention of the order under s. 7 2 .
As the tenant was about to vacate the accommodation, on February 20, 1957, respondent No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated the February 12, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No.
Officer passed an order directing the landlords to let the accommodation to respondent No.
Respondent No.
In the meantime on February 23, 1957, proceedings were started against the appellant under S. 7A 1 of the Act.
By an order dated March 23, 1957, under S. 7A 2 respondent No.
The appellate companyrt reversed this decree and decreed the suit.
5 is the Assistant Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi, authorised by the District Magistrate to perform his functions under the P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
244 A B After the allotment was passed, the landlords agreed to accept the appellant as a tenant at enhanced rent.
C. Misra, M. V. Goswami, and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the appellant.
There was thus a companytravention of the order and the District Magistrate had therefore jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under sub section 1 of s. 7A and to pass the orders under sub sections 2 3 of s. 7A. 244 D F 1Sup.
On January 22, 1957, the tenant stated before him in writing that he was going to leave the accommodation in a months time.
Respondent No.
This letting and the companytinuance of occupation by the appellant under it were in direct breach of the allotment order.
2862 of 1963.
The tenant filed a writ petition challenging the orders of respondent No.
The Assistant Rent Control Eviction Officer thereupon started proceedings under s. 7A 1 of the Act.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat, J. The appellant is the tenant and respondents Nos.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit, the appellate companyrt decreed it.,
5 directed the tenant to vacate the accommodation by March 24, 1957.
The tenant has number filed this appeal by special leave.
A special appeal from this order filed by the tenant was also dismissed.
On September, 9, 1958, the tenant filed the present suit asking for a declaration that the orders passed by respondent No.
HELD i The District Magistrate can pass an order under s. 7 2 number only when the accommodation is or has fallen vacant but also when it is about to fall vacant.
5 directed O. P. S. Chowk to evict the tenant and put the allottee in occupation of the accommodation.
He passed an order under s. 7A 2 directing the appellant to vacate the accommodation.
On January 5, 1957, the landlords stated before him in writing that the accommodation was about to be vacated by the tenant.
On February 12, 1957, the tenant again made a statement before him that he wanted to vacate the shop as the decree for ejectment had been passed against him.
By another order dated December 2, 1957, under S. 7A 3 respondent No.
However, subsequent to this order, the landlords allowed the appellant to companytinue as tenant on enhanced rent.
The appellant filed a writ petition but failing to get relief from the High Court, he filed a suit asking for a declaration that the orders passed by the Assistant Rent Control Eviction Officer were without jurisdiction.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit.
On February 11, 1956 the landlords obtained a decree for ejectment of the tenant from the accommodation.
5 passed order under s 7 2 of the Act directing the landlords to let the accommodation to respondent No.
5 were without jurisdic tion and for companysequential reliefs.
CI/67 2 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The order took effect immediately.
It companyld number be said that the order would take effect only when the accommodation actually fell vacant.
In this appeal the tenant challenges the orders passed by respondent No.
2271 of 1966.
On second appeal, the High Court restored the decree of the trial companyrt and dismissed the suit.
243 D E The order under s. 7 2 directed the landlords to let the accommodation to the allottee.
1 as the allottee of the accommodation.
