Judgment

MATHEW, J.: - This is an appeal, by special leave from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Allahabad, setting aside a decree Passed by the Small Causes Court Agra reversing the decree passed by the Additional Munsiff holding that the order of allotment of the premises in question to the appellant was illegal and ultra vires.

2. The facts of the case are these. There are two shops owned by one Genda Puri (hereinafter called the landlord,) in Agra City. One Kedarnath Tandon ( Tandon for short) was a tenant of these shops till September 1966, Tandon intimated to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Agra ("Rent Control Officer" for short) on 12-9-66 that he has vacated the shops and delivered possession of the same to the landlord. The rent of the shops was also paid by Tandon to the landlord upto that date sometime before 20-9-1966. The 1st respondent who got into possession of the shops after Tandon vacated the same, made an application in the prescribed form with the express consent of the landlord to the Rent Control Officer for allotment to him of the two shops on 19-9-1966. On 15-11-1966 the landlord revoked his consent for allotment of the shops to the 1st respondent and intimated to the Rent Control Officer that Tandon had not vacated the shops. Thereafter on 20-12-1966, the landlord intimated to the Rent Control Officer that the accommodation had fallen vacant. On 6-1-1967, the Rent Control Officer passed an order fixing 2-2-1967 as the date for consideration of the application for allotment made by the 1st respondent. On 21-1-1967, the appellant applied to the Rent Control Officer for allotment of the shops to him and the landlord consented to have them allotted to him. The Rent Control Officer passed an order allotting the two shops to the appellant as a nominee of the landlord on 27-1-1967. The lst respondent applied for cancellation of the allotment order passed in favour of the appellant. That was rejected. Thereafter, proceedings were taken under Section 7-A of the U. P. Act No. 3 of l947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to eject the 1st respondent, and notice was issued to the 1st respondent to show cause why he should not be ejected. The 1st respondent then instituted the suit for a declaration that the order of allotment dated 27-1-1967 in favour of the appellant was illegal and ultra vires and praying that the appellant may be restrained by a permanent injunction from interfering with his possession:.

3. The suit was contested defendants 1 and 2, namely, the appellant and the landlord. Their main contention was that the order dated 27-1-1967 allotting the two shops to the appellant was proper as, under Rule 4 of the Rules framed under the Act. if the Rent Control Officer failed to allot the shops within 30 days of the intimation of vacancy by the landlord the officer was bound to allot the same to the appellant as the nominee of the landlord. It was also contended that the 1st respondent came into possession of the shops clandestinely by entering into an arrangement with Tandon, the previous tenant, and that the landlord never inducted the 1st respondent into possession or accepted him as his tenant

4. The Additional Munsif found that Tandon, the previous tenant, delivered possession of the two shops to the landlord on 12-9-1966 who on 22-10-1966 put the 1st respondent in possession of the same and that the 1st respondent became the tenant of the shops. He further found that the Rent Control Officer committed an error of law in not allotting the shops to the 1st respondent as the landlord had given his consent for allotting the shops to the 1st respondent although he revoked the consent later on and hence the allotment order passed in favour of the appellant was in contravention of the rules and without affording a reasonable opportunity to the 1st respondent of being heard. He, therefore passed a decree in favour of the 1st respondent holding that the order of allotment dated 27-1-1967 was