LACHMI NARAIN Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in which the petitioner seeks to have set aside an order of allotment made in favour of the second respondent. The facts are these;

(2.) Premises known as No. 7, Cantonment Road, Lucknow, belonged to one Jagan Nath Prasad since deceased. Part of the premises consisting of a shop with attached residential accommodation was in possession of the third respondent as a tenant of Jagan Nath Prasad. Cm Jagan Nath Prasad's death the petitioner and his four brothers became the owner of the premises, and in September 1955, the five brothers obtained a decree for the ejectment of the third respondent from that portion of the premises which he occupied. On the 12th January 1956, the second respondent applied to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for the allotment to him of that portion of the premises (herein referred to as the premises in dispute) which were then, notwithstanding the decree which had been obtained by the petitioner and his brothers, still in the possession of the third respondent. On the 29th March 1956, an appeal which the third respondent had filed against the ejectment decree was dismissed, and on the following day the second respondent again made an application to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for the allotment of the premises in dispute, The Rent Control and Eviction Officer ordered his Inspector to ascertain whether the premises were vacant, and it is not in dispute that on the 4th April the Inspector reported that the third respondent was in possession but that the second respondent was also living in the premises as the guest of the third respondent.

(3.) On the 5th April 1956, the petitioner and his brothers filed an application for the execution of their decree of ejectment, and on the 10th April the third respondent made an application to the execution Court that no order be passed against her for delivery of possession of the premises in dispute without notice being first issued to her. It may be inferred therefore that on that date the third respondent was still in possession. In the meantime there had been a private partition between the petitioner and his brothers under which the premises in dispute were allotted to the petitioner.