SANTOSH KUMAR TIKMANI Vs. JAFAR ALI, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed for quashing an order of allotment passed under Section 7(2) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter called the Act). On 29 -9 -70 in favour of the Excise Inspector and an order of the District Magistrate dated 22 -10 -74 by which he requested the Superintendent of Police Mainpuri to provide police assistance for restoring and maintaining the status quo ante as it existed before 10 -9 -74 and to restrain the present Petitioner from interfering with the possession of the excise licensee running the liquor shop. The order also directed that the F.I.R. against the Petitioner and others lodged on 10 -9 -74 at police station Shikohabad should be proceeded with and the investigation completed without delay. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus is also claimed to restrain the Respondent from interfering with the rights of the Petitioner and for restoration to him of the possession over the shop in dispute in the form as it stood in 1974.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:

(3.) THE decree was sought to be executed as against the judgment debtors in the decree even though the shop was in the occupation of Ram Gopal and he was carrying on business under a licence from the Government. On 23 -8 -1974 the decree was sought to be executed for delivery of possession as against the judgment -debtors, but it was not actually executed. An application was filed in the Execution Court by the decree holder to the effect that the judgment -debtors had refused to deliver possession and it was necessary that the police aid be given to break open the locks and to deliver possession. The report of the Amin however was different. According to the Amin's report resistance was put by the employees of the contractor, and that they had refused to deliver the possession. In the face of the facts mentioned above the affidavit filed by the present Petitioner in the execution proceedings was obviously false. The licence was given under the Excise Act by open acution. The auction is published and people always come to know of it was, also known to the Petitioner that the rent was being deposited under Section 7 -C of the old Act on behalf of the Excise Inspector by the new licensee. It cannot be taken that the Petitioner was unaware of the fact that neither Pearey Lal Arora nor Girraj Saran Singh were the contractors carrying on the business on the date of execution. His affidavit accordingly filed before the Execution Court cannot particularly in view of the report of the Amin, be taken as containing any thing but falsehood.