( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Raman Das. His father, tribhuan Pas, had built a house in Mathura in the year 1942. Tribhuan Das did not occupy the house that he built in 1942 and let it out to tenants. Tribhuan Das died in August, 1948, and in the affidavit in support of the application it is mentioned that the applicant is his only son. The applicant was a student in Banaras studying Ayurvedic system of medicine. He was married in mathura in the year 1949. Gaudia Mission was a tenant in a portion of the house. The mission decided in March, 1950, to vacate the premises in their occupation and a number of applicants appeared who claimed that the house be allotted to them. One of them was the applicant who made an application to the authorities concerned for the allotment of the house in his favour on the ground that he was married and wanted to start his practice in Mathura and he had no other suitable accommodation available to him. The Mission vacated the premises on the 26th of march, 1950. The Rent Control Officer on the 24th March of 1950 allotted the premises to opposite Party No. 3, Dr. A. P. Khullar. Dr. A. P. Khullar was a refugee from the Punjab who was a medical practitioner there and after the partition he had shifted to Mathura and was staying with his brother-in-law.

( 2 ) SOON after the allotment order the applicant filed a suit in the Court of the Munsif at Mathura claiming an injunction on the ground that the allotment order was illegal. On 10th April, 1950, while dealing with the question of issue of ad interim injunction the learned Munsif held that the House Allotment Officer could not make the allotment order before the 26th of March, 1950, when the house fell vacant and the order was, therefore, null and void. The suit, however, remained pending and we understand is still pending in the Court of the Munsif. On the 20th of april, 1950, the allotment officer reallotted the house to Opposite Party No. 3. It is mentioned in paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed by the applicant that the officer concerned consulted the government Pleader and after the receipt of the opinion of the Government Pleader he decided to issue a fresh allotment order. It is against this order of the 20th of April, 1950, that the application was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant formulated four points for the consideration of the Court and later in the course of his argument added a fifth point. It is necessary to set out these points in some detail as the line taken by learned counsel is not exactly the same as the line that was taken before the Bench that referred this case to us. The points are:

1. That Section 7 of the U. P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act (III (3) of 1947) is ultra vires the Legislature as. under lists II and III attached to the Government of India Act, 1935, the Legislature had no power to enact a provision like that.

2. That the allotment order not being for a public purpose was ultra vires and that the officer concerned could only allot the premises to Opposite Party No. 3 it the allotment was for a public purpose and that the order itself should show that it was for such a purpose.

3. That the restriction imposed under Section 7 was not a reasonable restriction and was, therefore, void under Article 19 (f) of the Constitution.

( 4 ) THAT the order dated the 20th of April, 1950, was passed mala fide and was, therefore, not binding; and

( 5 ) THAT inasmuch as there was special consideration shown to those who constructed houses after july 1, 1946, in the proviso attached to Section 7 the equality clause under Article 14 of the constitution was violated and the provision was bad.

4. As regards the first point learned counsel has drawn our attention to a decision of Bhagwati J. in tan Bug Taim v. Collector of Bombay, 47 Bom L R 1010, in which that learned Judge held that the Government of India Act did not