MAHABIR PRASAD Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE of the shops on the ground floor of house No. 40/-1, Parade, Kanpur, fell vacant in the first week of June 1951. Several persons including Mahabir Prasad (petitioner) and Bansidhar (opposite party No. 3) were desirous of taking the shop on rent. They applied for allotment to the rent Control and Eviction Officer who, according to the common case of the parties, is a person autnorised by the District Magistrate to perform his functions under the Rent Control and eviction Act (3 of 1947), and is, therefore, a "district Magistrate" within the meaning of the term as defined in Section 2 (d) of the Act. The Kent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the shop in question to the petitioner on 14-6-51, bansidhar, however, managed to occupy the shop. This occupation was obviously unauthorized.

(2.) THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer took steps under Section 7a of the. Act and passed an order for Bansidhar's eviction. The latter went up in revision to the Commissioner, allahabad-cum-Jhansi division but the latter by his order dated 4-10-1952 dismissed the said revision.

(3.) HAVING failed before the executive authorities, Bansidhar turned to civil Courts and instituted a suit against the petitioner for an injunction restraining aim from taking possession. He obtained a temporary injunction to that effect, but the suit was ultimately dismissed and the injunction was discharged. Bansidhar preferred an appeal and sought an injunction from the District Judge who also refused it. Thereafter he came to this Court and obtained an interim injunction which also was discharged on 28-4-53.