JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra, J. - This is a plaintiff's appeal. The suit was for recovery of arrears of rent.

2. The accommodation in dispute fell vacant on 10th March, 1957. The Post Master applied to the Rent Control Officer for the allotment of that house for the Post Office. On 29th March, 1957, the Rent Control Officer passed an order allotting it to the Post Office. The plaintiff's case was that the Post Office occupied the accommodation the same day. It wanted the landlord to make some repairs and reconstructions. The same were carried out, but nonetheless the Post Office did not actually shift and start working in the building till 16th March, 1958. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant Union of India was liable to pay arrears of rent from the date of the allotment order till March, 1958, the period for which they refused to pay any rent.

3. In defence, it was pleaded that it was agreed between the landlord and the Postal authorities that the landlord would build a tin shed and a verandah in the building and then alone the Post Office would take possession and would be liable to pay rent. All this did not happen till the 16th March, 1958. The plaintiff was not entitled to any rent for a period prior to 16th March, 1958.

4. The trial Court found that the plaintiff had not contracted to construct a shed, chabutra and verandah before the Post Office took possession of it. The Post Office came in possession in June, 1957. The plaintiff did carry out the requisite constructions and so the defendants were liable to pay rent with effect from the date of the allotment order namely, 29th March, 1957, under Rule 5 framed under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The suit was, therefore, decreed.

5. The Union of India went up in appeal. The lower appellate could held that the order of allotment a valid order in the context of the statutory provisions in the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act and, therefore, the defendant incurred no liability under Rule 5. It has also been alleged that since no written contract had been entered into between the parties, the defendants were not liable at all under any alleged contract of tenancy. It was then held that the plaintiff was in actual possession of the accommodation till 16th March, 1958 when the Post Office shifted into the house and so he was not entitled to rent for any period prior to 16th March, 1958 The decree was, therefore, modified and the suit was decreed for Rs. 45/- as rent for the period 16th March, 1958 to 31st March, 1958, at the rate of Rs. 90/- per month.

6. This time, the plaintiff has come up to this Court in second appeal.

7. Section 7(2) of the Rent Control Act, provides that the District Magistrate may be a general or special order require a landlord to let out to any person any accommodation which has fallen vacant. It has been found and so also it has been urged on behalf of the respondents that an order which does not require a landlord to let out any accommodation is not an order under Section 7(2) of the Act. The order, which was served on the landlord as well as the Post Office states that according to the orders of the District Magistrate, dated 29th March, 1957 the building belonging to Shri Rama Nand Pandey in which the Central Bank was in occupation till 10th March, 1957, has been allotted to the Post Office, Auriya, on a monthly rent of Rs. 90/-. A copy of the aforesaid order was sent to the plaintiff Rama Nand Pandey and to the Post Master for information. In my opinion, this document communicated the order of the District Magistrate dated 29th March, 1957, to the landlord. It informed him that the District Magistrate had allotted the accommodation to the Post Office. Section 7(2) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act does not prescribe any form in which the District Magistrate is to couch his order. All that it requires is that the landlord be intimated as to the choice of the person as to whom the acc