CHHOTEY LAL Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of certiorari be issued calling for the record of the case and for quashing the allotment order, dated 7-7-1952, as also another order dated 15/16-7-1952, by which the petitioner was ordered to vacate the house within three days. There is an affidavit in support of the application. We have heard Sri B. D. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, at length.

(2.) The events that have happened in the present case are perfectly clear and they are these: The petitioner purchased the house in question in February 1952. Then the house was in occupation of a tenant. Some time in May 1952, the tenant, who was a Government servant was under orders of transfer to another district. The petitioner appears to have given an intimation to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer about the impending vacation of the house by the tenant. A request was also made that the house might be allotted to the petitioner. Next, we find that the house was actually vacated by the tenant on 16-6-1952. That very day the petitioner took possession of the house. He is continuing in possession since then. An order by the District Magistrate allotting the house to the Inspector of Shops and Commercial Establishments, Moradabad, who is opposite party No. 3 to this application, was passed on 7-7-1952. Thereafter another order dated the 15/16-7-1952 was passed by the District Magistrate directing the petitioner to vacate the house within three days. The petitioner has now come up to this Court praying for the quashing of these orders.

(3.) Learned counsel has contended strenuously that the action taken by the District Magistrate by his order, dated 15/16-7-1952, could be legal only if he (the petitioner) had come into occupation of the house after 7-7-1952, in contravention of the allotment order made by the District Magistrate on that date. Learned counsel has laid great emphasis upon these swords in Section 7-A: