RAM LAL Vs. SHIV MANI SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by Sri Ram Lal under with the prayer that the order of the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, dated 31st Oct., 1960, and that of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lucknow, dated 8th July, 1960, be set aside and notice issued against the petitioner under Sec. 7-A (2) of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act, III of 1947, be discharged.

(2.) The dispute relates to house No. 111/2 in Garbar Jhala Park, Aminabad, Lucknow, which belongs to Sri Sita Ram Gupta. The petitioner is a tenant in the ground floor and carries on his business in general mercandise in it. The first floor was let out to one Sri Ram Chandra Kakkar. Some time in July 1958 the landlord was informed that the accommodation in the first floor would be vacated. On 14th July, 1958, the present petitioner Ram Lal obtained the consent of the landlord for this accommodation being allotted to him, and then applied to the District Magistrate, whose powers under the Control of Rent and Eviction Act (to be referred to hereafter as the Act) are exercised by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, for the accommodation being allotted to him. It is alleged that no steps were taken by that Officer over this application for over a month and on 25th Aug., 1958, therefore, the petitioner was put in possession of these premises by the landlord. On 13th Sept., 1958, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer issued a notice against him under Sec. 7-A (1) of the Act. A reply to that notice was given on 28th Sept., 1958, and on 12th Dec., 1958, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted this accommodation to two persons Sri Shiva Mani Singh and Sri A.B. Lal, who are opposite parties nos. 1 and 2 in this petition.

(3.) After this allotment order was passed, the allottees were put in possession of one of the rooms in the accommodation in the first floor. Under an arrangement arrived at with the petitioner, under which half the rent was paid by him and half by the allottees. It is further alleged that the allottees were paying him half the electric charges every month and that the entire electric bill was thereafter paid by him, i.e., petitioner to the Electric Supply Company.