RAM GOPAL BHATNAGAR Vs. THE STATE OF U.P. THROUGH THE MINISTER FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF U.P. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has claimed a writ of certiorari quashing the orders of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Kanpur dated 12 -5 -1954 and 16 -6 -1954 and that of the State Government dated 31 -1 -1956.

(2.) THE opposite party No. 4 is the landlord of the disputed premises in the city of Kanpur. The Petitioner states that he took the house on rent from opposite party No. 4 in the year 1939 and has been living in this house with his two sons Avadh Gopal and Raj Gopal and a number of other members of his family. As the Petitioner is an old and retired man the work of the family was mostly done by his eldest son Avadh Gopal Bhatnagar. The rent was also paid by him on behalf of the joint family, and the receipts were obtained in his name. The left wing of the house was in the occupation of Avadh Gopal and the rest of it was occupied by the applicant and other members of his family. Some domestic trouble arose between the father and the eldest son and Avadh Gopal Bhatnagar left Kanpur with his family. On 30 -4 -1954 due to the family dispute. Avadh Gopal sent a telegram to the landlord saying that he had vacated the premises in question. On the l0th of May, 1954 the Senior House Inspector inspected the premises and sent his report to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer about the vacancy of premises. The opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 Sri Indra Kumar Labour Officer and the landlord approached the District Magistrate who by his order dated 12 -5 -1954 ordered the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to allot the house to Indra Kumar. The applicant, however, Bled his objection before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur, on 12 -5 -1954 which was rejected by him and he passed the following order on the application of opposite party No 3:

(3.) THERE is not much dispute with regard to the facts of the case. It is not denied that the Petitioner along with his other son has been living in this premises for a considerable time. It is also admitted that the rent of the premises was being paid to the landlord by the eldest son of the Petitioner. The landlord treated the eldest son as the tenant. It is also not denied that the eldest son sent a telegram to the landlord that he was no longer willing to pay the rent and had terminated the tenancy. It is also admitted that an approach had been made by the opposite party No. 3 to the District Magistrate who instructed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to make an order of allotment and acting upon those instructions the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the premises to the opposite party No. 3. The objections filed by the Petitioner were rejected. Thereafter proceedings under Section 7 -A (3) were taken against the Petitioner. He further reiterated his objections and the objections were rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer; but on revision the order was reversed and the possession of the Petitioner was maintained.