His companyplaint was that all this was done behind his back and that he was being deliberately kept in ignorance of the whole matter.
Under R. 3 the District Magistrate was to make an allotment order within SO days of receipt of the intimation sent by the landlord under Section 7 1 a of the Act and to give numberice thereof to him.
The relevant facts are as follows One Arif Hussain was a tenant of one shop out of eight in the premises mentioned above under respondent No.
In the premises numbernotice was required to be given to him of the allotment in favour of the appellant which had been made in due companyrse.
On enquiry through an inspector, the officer came to learn that the widow was still in occupation.
In this mention was made of the rejection of the first application by the appellant on the ground of the widows companytinuance in occupation and it was stated that upon the second report to the effect that the widow had left the shop making over possession to the appellant the shop was declared vacant and numberified for allotment.
3 it was said that he had never applied for release of the shop in proper time but had submitted an application by ordinary post ante dated the 24th August, 1967 which was received only on the 13th December.
On 30th September the officer ordered publication of a numberification that the shop was vacant.
It appears that besides the appellant there was another applicant for allotment of the shop.
He stated further that he intended to utilise the site by demolishing the old building and companystructing a modern cinema hall and a marketing center with office flats and had by letter dated August 24, 1967 asked the officer that in case the shop of Arif Hussain fell vacant it should number be allotted to anybody but released in his favour to enable him to carry out his plan.
Rule 6 provided that an accommodation which has fallen vacant or likely to fall vacant is bonafide needed by the landlord for his own personal occupation, the District Magistrate may permit the landlord to occupy himself.
On August 9, 1967 the officer rejected the appellants application holding that there was numbervacancy.
With regard to respondent No.
His further case was that though he had number heard of the result of his application, he came to learn that the officer had passed an allotment order in favour of the appellant on the 2lst October.
He used to carry on a business in bamboos and wooden posts.
On 21 st October, 1967 the allotment Committee companysidered both the applications and recommended allotment to the appellant.
On receipt of a letter from the appellant dated the 18th September praying for allotment of the shop on the ground of the widows having vacated it and his aforementioned purchase, the officer called for a report again.
This appears to have been submitted on the 18th September.
Such a numberification was issued on the 4th October.
He alleged that he had numberknowledge that the shop was being treated as vacant and companyplained that the illegal occupation of the appellant was being shielded and companydoned by the allotment order without companysidering his own application for release made on the 24th August.
She followed this up by writing to the officer on August 26, 1967 that she had vacated the shop and given possession thereof to the appellant.
The view taken by the revising authority was that the landlords release application dated August 24, 1967 was number companysidered by the officer as it should have been and that the allotment order in favour of the opposite party the appellant was made to regularise the illegal occupation of the premises in dispute.
the officer allotted the shop in term?
On the same day the widow intimated the officer that she would be vacating the shop after the Iddat period.
The appellant made an application dated July 23/28 to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer hereinafter referred to as the officer for allotment of the shop to himself under the provisions of the Act on the strength of his purchase of the business and the stock in trade.
On December 8, 1967 respondent No.
In the result the State Government set aside the order of allotment and directed release of the accommodation in dispute to the landlord for reconstruction.
On September 4 the Officer directed his inspector to enquire and report.
On July 8, 1967 he purported to execute a sale deed transferring his business including its good will and stock in trade to the appellant, Masood Ahmed Within three days thereafter the said tenant died leaving a widow.
The appellant filed his reply to the revision application on January 16, 1968 whereupon Government called for a report from the officer which was submitted on the 23rd January.
Therein he stated that the building as a whole was a very old one that two shops adjoining Arif Hussains were without any roof and in his occupation though vacant and that the whole building required demolition and companyplete reconstruction.
of the recommendation.
The order of the State Government shows that it was made on a perusal of the record.
It was asserted further that the landlord had never cared to enquire about the fate of his application.
On the same day.
3 tiled a revision application under Section 7 F of the Act to the State Government.
The order of the State Government under Section 7 F was vitiated as it gave numberreasons for rejecting the officers order.
80/79, Banasmandi Copprrganj, Kanpur dated October 21, 1967 made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Kanpur in favour of the appellant and releasing the same to the respondent No.
K. Mitter, J. This appeal by special leave is from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court rendered in a Special Appeal upholding the order of the State Government dated March 12, 1968 under Section 7 F of the Uttar Pradesh Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1967 cancelling the allotment order of a shop in premises No.
