ZAHIRUDDIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition was heard and allowed by C. D. Parekh, J. on the 23rd September, 1970 but on the appli cation of opposite party No. 2 that order has been set aside and the petition has come up for hearing again.

(2.) THE petitioner applied on the 27th September. 1967 for allotment of the premises at No. 19/18 under S. 7 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. The application was fixed for orders of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the 17th October, 1967, but the case was adjourned to the 15th November. 1967 as the Enquiry Inspec tor could not submit his report by then. Meanwhile, on the 13th October. 1967, opposite party No. 2 also made an ap plication for allotment of the same pre mises which appear to have been wrong ly described as No. 19/8. The Enquiry Inspector submitted his report in respect of the application of opposite party No. 2 on the 19th October, 1967. and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the premises to opposite party No. 2 on the 23rd October, 1967. Opposite party No. 2 entered into possession of the premises on the strength of the order of allotment in his favour. The petitioner finding op posite party No. 2 in possession of the premises in respect of which he had made an application for allotment, applied to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for cancellation of the allotment of those premises to opposite party No. 2. After hearing the applicant and opposite party No. 2, the Rent Control and Eviction Offi cer realised that the application of the petitioner was not submitted to him along with that of opposite party No. 2 and remained pending but the order of allot ment was made in favour of opposite party No. 2. He thought that opposite party No. 2 had, as alleged by the peti tioner, brought about this situation in collusion with his office. He accordingly cancelled the order of allotment in fav our of opposite party No. 2 and directed that all the applications for allotment received by a specified date be enquired into by the Chief Inspector and submit ted to him for fresh orders of allotment of the accommodation. Opposite party No. 2 moved the State Government in re vision under Section 7-F of the Act chal lenging the legality and propriety of the order of cancellation of allotment. The State Government was of the view that there was nothing on the record to show that opposite party No. 2 had committed any fraud or misrepresentation in secur ing the order of allotment in his favour and that the application of the petitioner was not put up for orders of the Rent Con trol and Eviction Officer presumably due to slackness or lapse on the part of the Inspector of the Office of the Rent Con trol and Eviction Officer, for which suit able action should be taken against the delinquent officers but opposite party No. 2 should not be penalised therefor. The State Government also felt that op posite party No. 2 was in possession for about a year and it was not proper to cancel the order of allotment. This order of the State Government is sought to be impugned in this petition.

(3.) GOPALII Mehrotra, J. had an other occasion to consider the scope of Section 7-F in Ram Gopal Bhatnagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1957 All LJ 913. The learned Judge laid stress on the word "case" appearing in Section 7-F and observed :-