K.B. Asthana, J.
1. This is a plaintiffs appeal from a concurrent decree of the dismissal of his suit for a declaration that he was a tenant of the defendant in the premises in suit.
2. It appears that northern part of the premises belonging to the defendant was let by an order dated 26-10-1957 in the name of five persons. One of the five allottees Daulatram vacated the part of the premises occupied by him. The plaintiff Sajjan Singh thereupon made an application for allotment of the portion so vacated by Daulatram. This was opposed by defendant landlord Rameshwar Sahai. However, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed the necessary order on 31-8-1960 purporting to make an allotment in favour of the plaintiff limiting the period of occupancy to three months. It may be mentioned that the plaintiff had taken possession of the portion vacated by Daulatram much earlier in anticipation of the allotment. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer seems to have regularised that occupation to avoid inconvenience to the plaintiff in the rainy season if he were asked to vacate. The plaintiff was directed to find out some alternative accommodation for himself. The plaintiff, however, did not vacate the accommodation occupied by him on the expiry of three months and claimed that he was entitled to remain in possession as tenant. The landlord applied to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for release of the accommodation in his favour. By an order dated 2-8-1961 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer released the accommodation in favour of the landlord and rejected the application of the plaintiff for a regular allotment.The plaintiff then instituted the suit giving rise to this appeal for a declaration that he was a tenant of the defendant in the accommodation in suit.
3. The sole basis of the plaintiff's claim was the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 31-8-1960. The learned Munsif who tried the suit held that by the said order, a copy of which was Ext. A-5 on record, a right of tenancy was conferred on the plaintiff for a period of three months expiring on 31-11-1960 and thereafter the plaintiff was merely in occupation without any right and no declaration as sought could be given, in his favour. The learned Civil Judge on appeal by the plaintiff took the view that the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 31-8-1960 was not really an allotment order as contemplated under the law and the rules but merely amounted to a consent order permitting the plaintiff to continue occupation for a period of three months to avoid inconvenience to himself. The result was that the decree passed by the court of first instance was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed.
4. The main ground in support of the appeal raised was that the order dated 81-8-1960 being a regular order of allotment passed in favour of the plaintiff under Section 7 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, the plaintiff acquired a right under the provisions of that Act and the rules to remain in occupation of the accommodation allotted till that right was determined or lapsed under the law. It was urged that the limitation of three months put in the said order of allotment being without jurisdiction was not binding and deserved to be ignored.
I do not find any substance in this contention. In my judgment the order dated 31-8-1960 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is not an order of allotment at all as contemplated under Section 7 of the said Act, though there may be some words to the effect that the accommodation is allotted but that declaration would not be effective under the taw as there is nothing on the record to show that any order was served on the landlord to let the accommodation to the plaintiff. To me it appears that the plaintiff having taken possession of the accommodation without any order had committed an offence under the said Act and the order dated 31-8-1960 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was in the nature of condoning the lapse on the plaintiff's part permitting him to continue in occupation for a period of three months as the landlord consented to that course. It is difficult for me to hold that in the circumstances any tenancy came into existence. It cannot be disputed that the lease does not come into existence on the passing of an allotment order. An orderpassed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as delegate of the District Magistrate under Section 7 of the Act directing the landlord to let the accommodation by its own force does not create a tenancy or a lease. It is not a document of lease. The tenancy comes into existence when the landlord in pursuance of the said order lets in the allottee into occupation of the accommodation and accepts rent. Here in the instant case the defendant was from the very inception objecting to the plaintiff being allowed to retain possession of the accommodation. Thus between the plaintiff and the defendant no relationship of landlord and tenant arising from a contract of tenancy ever came into existence.
5. For the reasons given above, I do not find any force in this appeal and dismiss it. As nobody appears to oppose this appeal there would be no order for costs.