JUDGMENT

Hon'ble D.N. Jha, J. - This writ petition originally had been filed by Syed Haider Ali under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the quashing of the order of allotment dated 2-5-1968, and orders dated 11-11-1968 and 29-11-1961, contained in Annexure 1, 2 and 3 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Rae Bareily and the State of Uttar Pradesh. During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner had died and his legal representatives were brought on the record who thereafter pursued the said writ petition.

2. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner Is the owner of ?rd share of shop Mo. 1142 bearing municipal number 145. This share was contested by Sarfraz Husain opposite party No. 3 who is also now dead and is represented by his legal representatives. The matter ultimately was decided in a separate suit and it is now not in dispute that Haider Ali and ?rd share in the shop in question. This shop bad not been leased out and when it was about to be allotted in the year 1966 the petitioner had submitted his objection to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer who after considering the same had rejected the application for allotment on the ground that the shop was not vacant. It is asserted that surreptitiously Sarfriz Husain after reporting that the shop was vacant managed to get the allotment in favour of opposite party No. 4 Abdul Gaffer Khan. This allotment order is dated 27-5-1968 and its certified copy is Annexure receipt of information the petitioner submitted an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Rae Bareii on 1-6-1968 for cancellation of the allotment order. It is stated that no hearing took place and the application remained penning. Thereafter the petitioner learnt through an information received from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that his application had been rejected vide order dated 11-11-1968 Certified copy of this order is Annexure-2. The petitioner had represented before the state Government opposite party No. 4 under section 7-F for cancellation of the said order, but that too was rejected vide order dated 29-1-1968 by opposite party No. 1. Certified copy of tats order is Annexure 3, it is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come up before this Court by meats of the present petition to question the respective orders including tho allotment order mentioned above.

3. The petition has been contested on behalf of opposite party No. 4 Abdul Gaffer Khan. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of other opposite parties. It is stated by me allottee that he had moved an application for the allotment of the shop which was in occupation of opposite party No. 3 and vide allotment order dated 27-5-1968 he was allotted the said shop and he also received the possession of the same and is in peaceful occupation of the chop. He admitted that information had been received with respect to the objection filed by the petitioner and in pursuance of the same he lead appeared before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The copy of the notice is Annexure A-l. The possession was obtained from Sarfraz Husain by the allottee on 1-6-1968. It is asserted that the allotment order is legal and cannot be assailed on any of the grounds put forth any the petitioner in the writ petition. Opposite party No. 3 Sartraz Husain deposed that he himself was occupying the shop and carrying on business of general merchant and when the shop was allotted to opposite party No. 4 he delivered the possession to him. It is asserted that he never intended to damage the interest of the petitioner. It is denied that the previous application for allotment was rejected on the basis of the objection raised by the petitioner. He has filed the copy of the order along with the counter affidavit. He admits that the shop was allotted by his formal consent. In short an effort his been made to support the impugned orders passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the State Gove