JUDGMENT

T.S. Misra, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises in the following circumstances :

One Sri G.D. Datta father of opposite party No. 4 was the owner of two houses adjoining each other having Municipal numbers 407 and 408 respectively situated in Purana Qila, Lucknow. The petitioner is a tenant of house No. 407 on a monthly rental of Rs. 35/-. He occupied this premises in October, 1948. The adjoining house No. 408 is in the tenancy of Sri S. K. Bose. On the demise of Sri G.D. Dutta and his wife the opposite party No. 4 and his brothers and sister inherited the said properties. The opposite party No. 4 has been living in house No. 2 Krishna building Charbagh, Lucknow as tenant thereof on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/-. In January, 1964 an application is moved by the opposite party No. 4 under section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act III of 1947 for permission to file' a suit for eviction of the present petitioner Iqbal Narain Mohan from the premises No. Purana Qila and S.K. Bose from the premises No. 408 Purana Qila Lucknow on the ground that his brother Payodhi Kumar Dutta who was then working as an Assistant Superintendent LR.C.A. Office was to retire soon and would settle along with his family members in Lucknow and that the petitioner did not have sufficient accommodation in the house No. 2 Krishna Building Charbagh, Lucknow to accommodate his brother and his family members therein. That application was rejected by the Deputy Collector Lucknow on 7th January, 1966 holding that the need of the applicant was not genuine and urgent. An application under section 7-F of the Act made by the opposite party No. 4 before the State Government was also rejected on 31st December, 1958. Again, on 7th May, 1969 the opposite party No. 4 filed on application under section 3 of the U.P. Act III of 1967 for permission to file a suit for eviction of Iqbal Narain Mohan, the present petitioner, from the premises No. 407 on the ground that the opposite party No. 4 was going to retire shortly and had to settle permanently in his own house at Lucknow. That application was contested by the present petitioner and was rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. A revision was filed against that order before the Commissioner Lucknow Division who allowed that petition and granted the requisite permission to file a suit for ejectment of the present petitioner. The present petitioner then filed petition under section 7-F of the U.P. Act III of 1947 before the State Government which was, however, rejected by an order dated 12th June, 1973. The opposite party No. 4 then filed an application under section 43(2)(rr) read with section 21 of the U.P. Urban Building a (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 13 of 1972 for eviction of the present petitioner from the premises in question. That application is still pending for disposal. The petitioner has now sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of the State Government dated 12th June, 1973, and the order of the Commissioner Lucknow Division dated 3rd June, 1972. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of prohibition directing the Prescribed Authority not to proceed with the petition dated 3rd July, 1973, and a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings started on the said application. The petition had been contested by the opposite party No. 4.

2. For the petitioner, it was urged that the second application filed by the opposite party No. 4 under section 3 of the U.P. Act III of 1947 for the grant of permission to file a suit for eviction of the petitioner from the premises No. 407 Purana Qila was barred by the principle of res judicata inasmuch as his first application moved for the same purpose had been rejected by the Deputy Collector Lucknow also by the State Government. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Saniporan Singh v. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer