RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. :- This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari be issued to the opposite party No. 1, that is, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and Magistrate, Kanpur, and the order of allotment, dated the 4th of March, 1953, passed by opposite party No. 1 in favour of opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3, namely, the Annapurna Cafetaria, Kanpur, through the Secretary, District Food Advisory Committee, Kanpur and Mrs. Rathore, President, District Food Advisory Committee, Kanpur, be quashed.

2. The facts leading to this application are :

3. The applicants are the landlords of certain buildings in a compound with one municipal number 17/3 situated on the Mall, Kanpur. Of the various buildings on this land, one was let out to one Shri Uma Shankar Mehrotra, son of Shri Bhupat Prasad Mehrotra, several years ago, Shri Uma Shankar Mehrotra, whose father Shri Bhupat Prasad Mehrotra carried on a business in the name of S. Varma in that portion of the accommodation, was in occupation of that portion on the 5th of March, 1953, when, according to the allegations in the affidavit filed in support of this application, opposite party No. 1, namely, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and Magistrate, Kanpur passed the allotment order under Section 7 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction (Amendment) Act (Act XLIV of 1948), ordering the applicants to lee out the portion, previously occupied by Shri S. Varma, to the Annapurna Cafetaria, Kanpur. The landlord-applicants received this order on the 11th of March 1953.

4. On 5th March, 1953, according to the admitted case of the parties, a letter, addressed to Mool Chand instead of being addressed to Mool Narain, one of the proprietors of the firm Messrs Brij Kishore Mool Narain (also wrongly described as Messrs Behari Lal Mool Chand) was received from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, asking Mool Narain to see the Additional District Magistrate (City), Kanpur, at 4 P.M. that day in connection with the bungalow in premises No. 17/3 previously occupied by Shri S. Varma. Mool Narain was not in Kanpur on that day and so could not comply with the request in that letter.

A similar request was then addressed to him on the 6th of March, 1953, requiring him to see the Additional District Magistrate (City), Kanpur, just then. This peremptory request also could not be complied with as Mool Narain had not returned to Kanpur till then. However, one Madho Prasad, brother-in-law of Mool Narain, met the Additional District Magistrate (City), Kanpur and informed him that the portion, occupied by Messrs, S. Varma, was still in their possession, that they had not vacated it, nor had they any intention to vacate the same and that, therefore, no question of allotting it to someone else arose.

He also informed the Additional District Magistrate, when the question of certain repairs was raised by the latter, that, under the contract of tenancy between the landlord and the tenant, it was the tenant who was bound to carry out the necessary repairs. All this in connection with the two letters and the meeting between Madho Prasad and the Additional District Magistrate (City), Kanpur, was repeated in a letter which Mool Narain sent to the Additional District Magistrate on the 9th of March, 1953.

5. The allotment order, served on the applicants which is annexure D to the application, is dated the 4th of March, 1953, and is with respect to the premises No. 17/3, except one room en the back, the previous occupier of which was Shri S. Varma. The validity of this order is challenged on the ground that the accommodation in dispute had never fallen vacant prior to the allotment order and that, therefore, the allotment order was without jurisdiction and was ultra vires of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Another ground urged was that the accommodation in suit formed part of a larger accommodation and that the