SHEIKH RAFIUDDIN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application Under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by one Sheikh Rafiuddin. The allegations in the petition are that the applicant is the Mutwalli and manager of Mori Masjid in the city of Aligarh and manages a number of shops attached and situate below the mosque. There was a tenant Abdul Rashid occupying one of these shops No. G3/360 and he fell in arrears of rent; he was likely to hand over possession surreptitiously to another person after getting pagri. The applicant informed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer about this fact and he claimed this shop personally for his own business. Later on suit No. 302 of 1952 was filed for ejectment of Abdul Rashid which was decreed on 28-5-1953 and on 8-5-1954 possession was delivered to the applicant through court. It was alleged that in October 1952 one Inder Nath also asked for the allotment of this shop but the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declined to pass the allotment order and only said that it. would be decided when the suit was decreed by the Civil Court and possession delivered to the landlord. The applicant claims himself to be the landlord of the premises.

(2.) On 10-5-1954 the applicant, as he alleges, by way of an abundant caution, filed an application for allotment of the shop to him. There were other applicants also for the allotment of this shop and among them was one Punjabilal opposite party No. 2. He also applied on 8-5-1954 for allotment of this house to him. It was contended by the applicant that the shop was allotted to the said Punjabilal by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on a false and fabricated report of the inspector and he also obtained an order Under Section 7A(1) of the Rent Control and Eviction Act without any notice to the applicant. The applicant when he applied for a certified copy of the a allotment order, it was not given to him. The applicant went up in revision before the Commissioner Agra-Rohilkhand Division and his application in revision was decided on 22-9-1954 by the Addl. Commr. who set aside the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer; that on 10-2-1955 the applicant received a notice from the Government of UP, opposite party No. 1, setting aside the order of the learned Addl. Commr. and he was given no opportunity of being heard. The applicant alleges that he is in possession of the shop and he is paying Rs. 25 as rent to the waqf. The applicant is using the premises for the purpose of this own business and in order to store the belongings of the mosque. The applicant challenges that the order of the Government of the UP cancelling the order of the Addl. Commr. was an unwarranted invasion of his fundamental rights and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

(3.) The grounds on which the order was challenged, inter alia, was that the order of the State Government was not authorised by any provisions of law and was ultra vires and also contrary to the principles of natural justice; that there was no provision authorising the passing of such an order and even if there be any provision it is void Under Article 19 of the Constitution that the order passed by the State Government is arbitrary and made without any consideration of law or justice.