SURESH CHAND Vs. HARI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal is directed against the judgment of Brother B. N. Lokur, J. dated December 22, 1971, allowing the writ petition of respondents 1 to 9. By the said judgment the application made by Suresh Chandra, the appellant, under Section 7-A of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (briefly stated as the Act) was rejected and the orders passed by the Commissioner dated 23rd September, 1969 and that of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 24-1-1968 were quashed.

(2.) THE facts are these : A six door shop, owned by the respondents 1 to 9 was let out by them to one Rameshwar Prasad. THE respondent 1 to 9 filed a civil suit for eviction of Rameshwar Prasad on the ground that he had illegally sub-let the shop to his three sons Nand Lal, Gopi Nath and Shri Nath. THE suit was decreed with the findings that Rameshwar Prasad had illegally sub-let the aforesaid shop to his three sons without the consent of the landlords. THEreafter the Assistant Rent Control and Eviction Officer reported to the District Magistrate that the aforesaid shop is vacant and could be allotted to three persons by splitting it up in three portions. THE District Magistrate approved the report on May 23rd 1958 in pursuance of which Area Rationing Officer (R. C.) issued intimation of allotment to Nand Lal, Shrinath and Suresh Chandra. In this letter it was further mentioned that out of six doors, the space occupied by 3 doors had been allotted to Nandlal where as one door to Shrinath and two doors to Suresh Chandra. THE respondents 1 to 9 having come to know of the aforesaid allotment order filed an application for its review on the ground that the shop was required by them for their own use and occupation. THEy alleged that the allotment order made in favour of the aforesaid three persons was illegal. THE application made by them was allowed by the District Magistrate on 7th July, 1958 and cancelled the allotment order dated 23rd May, 1958 in favour of Nand Lal, Shrinath and Suresh Chandra. By this order, the District Magistrate further directed that the shop would be released in favour of respondent nos. 1 to 9. Feeling aggrieved, Nandlal, Shri Nath and Suresh Chandra filed a representation for the review of the aforesaid order dated 7th July, 1958 cancelling the allotment order dated 24th May, 1958 in their favour. THE main ground taken in the review application was that the Distt. Magistrate did not have any power to pass the order dated 7th July, 1958. THE District Magistrate allowed this application on August 19, 1958 and recalled the order dated 7th July, 1958 on the ground that the same was without jurisdiction. He, however, directed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to examine the case of Gopi Nath and Suresh Chandra for allotment afresh. After the report was submitted by the Area Rationing Officer (R. C.) the District Magistrate finally passed an order dated 22nd December, 1958 allotting three door shop to Nandlal, one door shop to Srinath and two door shop to Suresh Chandra. Dissatisfied with this order of allotment, respondent nos. 1 to 9 preferred a writ petition in this Court. THE writ petition was subsequently numbered as writ petition No. 320 of 1959. THE writ petition was allowed to be withdrawn on the 18th May, 1964 by Hon'ble G. C. Mathur, J. on the ground that the parties had come to terms. THE order passed by Hon'ble G. C. Mathur J. is as follows :-

(3.) SHRI Shanti Bhushan, counsel appearing for the appellant has raised a number of grounds in support of the appeal. The first ground was that the compromise entered into between the respondents 1 to 9 and the appellant and others being against the statutory provisions of Section 7 of the Act was void and was, therefore, not binding on the appellant. This submission was made by him on the assumption that Suresh Chandra was also a party to the said compromise, although it may be stated that it was strongly urged by him that Suresh Chandra had neither engaged SHRI S. N. Kacker as his counsel nor had actually he signed the compromise and, therefore, he was not a party to the compromise and the same was liable to be ignored.