RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. HARI SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAMESH Chandra, who is the appellant before us, filed an application for allotment of premises No. 5/21/71 mohalla Gul Shaheed before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the 10th May, 1966. This application was allowed on the 30th May, 1966. In pursuance of this order Ramesh Chandra obtained possession on 6-6-1966. Hari Shanker, who is the landlord of the premises, filed a revision before the State Government under Section 7-F of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This representation was allowed by the State Government on the 21st July, 1967. A writ petition against the order of the State Government was filed by the allottee, Ramesh Chandra but it was subsequently withdrawn on 27-11-1968. Thereafter Hari Shanker applied for delivery of possession under Section 7-F of the Act. The application was allowed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the view that as the allotment order in favour of Ramesh Chandra has been cancelled, therefore, his possession was that of an illegal occupant and, as such, ordered his eviction. A revision against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was filed, which was allowed by the Commissioner on the 30th April, 1970, on the view that proceedings under Section 7-A (1) and (2) could not be initiated against a person who has entered into possession on the basis of an allotment order. Aggrieved by this order, Hari Shanker, the landlord preferred a petition in this Court which has given rise to this special appeal. The learned single Judge relying mainly on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Syed Ajaz Ali Khan v. Mohammad Rafiq, (AIR 1974 All 178) (FB) has allowed the petition.

(2.) THE only point canvassed before us is that an order for eviction of the allottee could not have been passed under Section 7-A of the Act. It was contended that the Full Bench decision could not be appropriately applied to the facts of the present case.

(3.) COUNSEL referred us to the decision in Krishna Chandra Sharma v. State of U. P., (1962 All LJ 426) but that decision has been overruled by the Full Bench and, as such, we need not consider it. The single Judge decision in Kali Prasad Basu v. R. C. E. O., (1959 All LJ 167) which lays down that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer does not have power under Section 7-A to put a subsequent allottee in possession even though the allotment order passed earlier is cancelled, does not appear to lay down the correct law. Once an order of allotment is cancelled, and a fresh order of allotment is passed it is the new order which replaces the earlier order, under Section 7 (2). The earlier order no longer exists and if the earlier allottee whose allotment order has been cancelled persists in occupation of the premises Section 7-A clearly applies. We may point out that a similar view was taken by a Division Bench in Mangal Sen v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, (1972 All LJ 587).