( 1 ) HOUSE No. 127-A (3) situate at Civil Lines Bareilly was admittedly evacuee properly vested in the Custodian. The same was sold in October/november 1956 by public auction under Section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and one Vidhya bhushan Chaudhry was declared the auction-purchaser. Although the auction took place about two years ago, the sale certificate in respect thereof has not! been issued so far in favour of vidhya Bhushan Chaudhry. This is the definite allegation of the petitioner and the Rent Controller, Bareilly, respondent, has not controverted it. According to the report of the house inspector dated 25th May 1957, annexure B, no sale certificate in respect of this property in favour of Vidhya Bhushan chaudhary had been made till then. For the purposes of this case we may, therefore, take it that a sale certificate has not been made in favour of the auction-purchaser as yet. After the auction Vidhya Bhushan took possession of the house and deposited his luggage etc. also in it. The petitioner, who is Manohar Lal, has alleged that Vidhya Bhushan, who owns a farm at Kaladongi in Haldwani, district Nainital, often lived in the house in question but also stayed at Kaladongi, the petitioner himself used to stay with his brother in another house in bareilly city but after the latter was married they requested Vidhya Bhushan to permit them to shift into the house in question as licencee which Vidhya Bhushan permitted. In this manner they claim to be living in the house not as tenants but as licencees without payment of any rent to Vidhya Bhushan in a portion only while the remainder of the building is in the occupation of Vidhya Bhushan. In June 1957, the Rent Controller served a notice upon jeewan Dass the brother of the petitioner, and another notice purporting to be against Mohan Lal under Section 7-A (1) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 to show cause why they should not be evicted. They appeared in reply to the notice and op-posed it but the Rent Controller by his order dated 12th July 1957 directed them to be evicted. It is alleged that no allotment order in favour of any individual had till then been made by the Rent Controller, still he made the order under sub-section (2) of Section 7-A against the petitioner. By the present petition the petitioner is challenging the legality of the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller under Section 7-A (2) and has asked the same to be quashed.

( 2 ) TWO-FOLD objections were urged at the hearing, firstly, that in the absence of any order of allotment of the accommodation by the Rent Controller in favour of any person he had no jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner under Sub-section (2) of Section 7-A, and, secondly, that the house in question had not ceased to be evacuee property as such the provisions of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 were inapplicable to it, and the order of the Rent Controller was without jurisdiction.

( 3 ) IT is unnecessary for disposing of this petition to examine the first objection by the petitioner, as the same can effectively be disposed of on the second ground alone. Admittedly, the house in question was evacuee property. It, however, was sold by public auction under Section 20 of the displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 which conferred powers on the managing officer, as defined in that Act, to transfer any property out of the compensation pool. This house, it is not disputed, was part of the compensation pool; as such the auction sale held in respect thereof was governed by the provisions of that section. This section says that subject to any rules that are made under the Act, the managing officer may sell any property in the compensation pool. Section 40 of the same Act conferred power on the central Government to frame rules; accordingly the Displaced Persons (Compensation and rehabitation) Rule