( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying that the order of allotment of the petitioners house passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Agra, on 6-7-1951, in favour of Govind Ram opposite-party be quashed and that an ad interim injunction be issued staying the operation of the said order pending the disposal of this petition.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the owner of house No. 3456/3557 situate in mohalla Gulabkhana, Agra. According to her, she purchased it in 1948 for her residence. At the time of purchase, the whole house was in occupation of a tenant. The house fell vacant in January, 1951, when the upper portion of that house was allotted to her by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the lower portion was thereafter allotted to one Jiwat Ram but Jiwat Ram vacated it soon after and then the petitioner occupied the lower portion also. On 19-1-1951, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer without consulting the petitioner, allotted the said lower portion to Govind Ram opposite party no. 2. On 22-1-1951, the petitioner applied to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Agra, for the allotment of the lower portion to her as she wanted it for her own use. The Rent Control and eviction Officer, however, rejected her application and confirmed his previous order of allotment in favour of Govind Ram on 28-2-1951. Against this order, the petitioner moved the commissioner in revision and the Additional Commissioner of Agra, by his order dated 18-4-1951, set aside the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and directed him to make a fresh allotment after consulting the petitioner. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, however, after consulting the petitioner, again confirmed his previous order. A revision against this order to the Commissioner was dismissed.

( 3 ) IN this petition, it was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the last order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, in which he confirmed his previous order allotting the lower portion of the house to Govind Ram, was void and should be quashed. Two grounds have been urged. The first ground taken is that the U. P. Rent Control and Eviction Act (Act No. 3 of 1951) is void because it is inconsistent with the provisions of fundamental rights contained in Article 19 (1) (f), part III of the Constitution. This question has been decided by this Court and it has been held that the Act is not inconsistent with the provisions of the aforesaid Article of the Constitution and is not void, vide, -- raman Das v. The State of U. P. , AIR 1952 All 703 (F. B.) (A ). The second ground urged is that the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was contrary to Rule 7 of the Rules framed by the Provincial Government under Section 17, U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. Rule 7 runs as follows:

"7. Where a portion of accommodation falls vacant and the owner is in occupation of another portion thereof, the District Magistrate shall, before making the allotment order, consult the owner and shall, so far as possible, make the allotment in accordance with the wishes of the owner. "

( 4 ) THE petitioner being already in occupation of the upper portion of the house, the rule, no doubt, applied to her case. The District Magistrate was, therefore, bound before making the allotment order, not only to consult the owner but also, "so far as possible", to make the allotment in accordance with the wishes of the owner. In his order, the Rent Control and Eviction officer has stated that the petitioner did not require the lower portion of the house for her own use because she had let out a portion of the upper portion itself to another tenant, namely, shrimati Tulsa. He has further stated that Govind Rams needs were greater and that the upper portion is quite independent and separate from the lower portion as the approach to the upper portion is by a staircase which can be used from outside and one can go up without passing th