JUDGMENT

W. Broome, J. - This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the Plaintiff-Appellant on 16-3-1960 under Order XXI, Rule 103 CPC for the ejectment of the Defendant-Respondent Girdhari Lal from a certain shop in paltan Bazar in the town of Dehra Dun. The suit was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge of Dehra Dun on 24-9-1962 and the appeal filed by the Plaintiff was likewise dismissed by the District Judge of Saharanpur on 15-3-1963.

2. The facts leading up to the suit are as follows. The Plaintiff-Appellant, Mahant Suryanand Giri, is the Manager of the Maha Nirvani Panchaiti Akhara of Allahabad, which owns certain immovable properties in Dehra Dun, including two shops in paltan Bazar, which were previously let out to Niranjan Singh and Jiwan Singh. These tenants fell into arrears with their rent and the Plaintiff consequently sued for their ejectment and secured a decree against them from the Munsif of Dehra Dun on 30-3-1957. The decree was put into execution, but when the Plaintiff went to take possession of the shops he found that a certain Fakir Singh was in possession of one of the shops, in respect of which he had obtained an allotment order in August 1956. Possession of the second shop was delivered to the Plaintiff on 15-11-1957,and that shop was subsequently occupied by the Gandhi Ashram under an allotment order on 6-12-1957. The Plaintiff made attempts to secure possession of the shop occupied by Fakir Singh by making an application under Order XXI, Rule 97 Code of Civil Procedure; and on 21-7-1958 the Munsif allowed this application, holding that the allotment order issued in Fakir Singh's favour on 3-8-1956 was without jurisdiction, since no vacancy was in existence or about to come into existence at that time. But when the Plaintiff went to take possession from Fakir Singh, he found Girdhari Lal (the present Respondent) occupying the shop. On being apprised of this the Munsif at first ordered Girdhari Lal to be evicted, the same as Fakir Singh; but Girdhari Lal filed an objection, claiming that he had taken possession in pursuance of an allotment order granted on 25-7-1958 and the result was that the Munsif on 19-9-1959 dismissed the execution application againt him. Thereafter the Plaintiff-Appellant filed the suit out of which this present second appeal arises on 16-3-1960, challenging the legality of the allotment order passed in favour of Girdhari Lal and praying for his ejectment from the disputed shop.

3. The courts below have held that there is no illegality in the allotment order requiring the Plaintiff-Appellant to let the disputed premises to Girdhari Lal and that Girdhari Lal is in the position of a "statutory tenant" and is not liable to ejectment.

4. Mr. S.N. Kacker, who has appeared on behalf of the Appellant, has made the following three submissions:

1. That the allotment order issued in favour of Girdhari Lal is bad because the premises allotted had not fallen vacant.

2. That the allotment order is bad because it has been passed in respect of a portion of an accommodation, not the whole accommodation.

3. That even assuming that the allotment order was not illegal, the Defendant had no right to take actual possession of the premises without the consent of the Plaintiff-landlord.

5. We find absolutely no force in the first contention advanced on behalf of the Appellant. When a decree for ejectment had been passed against the Previous tenants Niranjan Singh and Jiwan Singh on 30-3-1957 and execution proceedings had been initiated by the decree-holder in pursuance of that decree, the Rent Control Officer was fully justified in assuming that the accommodation in question had fallen vacant, or at any rate was about to fall vacant. Warrants for delivery of possession were issued on 15-11-1957 against the judgment-debtors Niranjan Singh and Jiwan Singh and on 21-7-1958 against Fakir Singh, who had taken possession of the premises in collusion with the judgment-debtors; and it is clear that both the j