MOHAN LAL AGARWAL Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Cons titution challenging the order of the District Judge, Aligarh, dated 24th November, 1978, by virtue of which the order of the Prescribed Authority cancelling the allotment order has been upheld. The property in dispute is a shop situate in Mohalla Ram Leela ground, qasbah Murean, district Aligarh. One Murari Lal was the owner of the said shop. He let out the shop to Roshan Lal and Ram Khiloni, Murari Lal filed a suit for eviction of the tenants from the property in dispute. The suit was ultimately decreed by the High Court in the year 1968. Before the decree could be executed Mohan Lal, the nephew of Ram Khiloni, got an allotment order on the basis of an application alleged to have been sent by the land lord Murari Lal. As soon as Murari Lal came to know of this allotment order he applied before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for setting aside the allotment order on the ground that Mohan Lal had played fraud upon him and that he had obtained an allotment order on the basis of fraud. The Prescribed Authority by its order dated 3rd May, 1975, cancelled the allotment order after recording a finding that the allotment order had been obtained by playing fraud. The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge. The District Judge also, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the application, on the basis of which allotment order had been obtained, was a forged application and as such upheld the order of the Prescribed Authority cancelling the allotment order as the said allotment order had been obtained by playing fraud. THIS judgment was passed on 24th November, 1978, which is the impugned judgment. It may be observed that though the High Court passed the decree in 1968 the landlord has still not been able to get possession of the property due to the fact that the petitioner had obtained an allotment in his favour by playing fraud. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made two submissions before me. His first submission is that the allotment order once having been made it could not be set aside the Prescribed Authority as there is no power of review vested in the said authority. Secondly, it was urged that the basis of the allotment order was not the alleged forged application sent by the landlord Murari Lal but in fact the basis was the report of the Inspector declaring vacancy. In my opinion the submissions made by the learned counsel lack substance. In support of the first submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited many authorities, viz. Laxman v. State of Bombay A. I. R. 1964 S.C. 436; Property Agents v. Shamsher Bahadur A. I. R. 1966 All. 424 and Ram Bharose v. Distt. Supply Officer 1966 A. L. J. 103. There is no dispute with the proposition laid down in the above mentioned authorities that there is no specific power of review provided under the U.P. (Temporary) Con trol of Rent and Eviction Act (Act III of 1947), and as such the Rent Control and Eviction Officer does not have any power to review its previous order. The present case is not a simple case of review. Here the order had been obtain ed by the petitioner by practising fraud. Before the decree for ejectment could be executed against Roshan Lal and Ram Khiloni, Mohan Lal peti tioner, who is the nephew of Ram Khiloni, got the allotment order on the basis of the forged application and the said tenant continued in possession of the said property. THIS was a device to avoid the execution of the decree ultimately passed by the High Court. In Radhey Shyam Chaube v. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur 1978 A. W. C. 40, a Division Bench of this Court of which I was a member had held while considering the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act where there is also no power of review that the authority could review the order if the order was based on fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. The law laid down in the abovementioned authority fully applies to the present case. As stated above the finding of both the prescribed authority as well as the appellate court that the allotment order had been obtained by practising fraud. In this view of the matter the prescribed authority had the jurisdic tion to cancel the allotment order passed on the basis of fraud on the part of the petitioner. In regard to the second submission it has been found both by the pres cribed authority as well as by the appellate authority that the basis of the allotment order was the application, which was forged by the petitioner, and as such the submission that the basis was the report of the Rent Control Inspector has no substance. The finding recorded by both the authorities below is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution. In any case I may further point out that this is not a fit case for inter ference under Article 226 of the Constitution. As stated above, a decree was passed in favour of Murari Lal against Roshan Lal and Ram Khiloni. Murari Lal has died during the pendency of the litigation after the decree and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are the widow and the son of Murari Lal. The decree holder has been trying his best to execute the decree but before the decree could be executed Mohan Lal, the petitioner, who is the nephew of Ram Khiloni, has been set up in order that the decree passed in favour of Murari Lal may ultimately become infructuous. The appellate authority has further pointed out that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 required the accommoda tion for their personal use and release application are also pending before the authorities concerned for the said purpose since 1968. The petitioner having obtained the allotment order by practising fraud had already caused subetan tial injury to the landlord and his heirs and has been in illegal possession of the property for now more than 11 years. THIS being the conduct of the petitioner it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Consti tution. In the result the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The stay order dated 14th December, 1978, confirmed by order dated 30th January, 1979, is hereby vacated.