Judgment :- 1. This is an application by one R. Anantharama Krishna Iyer who is the owner of a building and site in the city of Trivandrum for a writ of certiorari calling up the records of Respondents 1 and 2 who are the Rent Controller (Deputy Collector) Trivandrum and the Appellate Authority (Collector) Trivandrum, in BRC 8/1951 before Respondent 1 and BRC Appeal petition before Respondent 2 and to quash Respondent 1's order dated 30th August 1951 allotting the petitioner's building to the Respondent 3 and his subsequent order of 14th February 1952 confirming the allotment as also Respondent 2's order dated 31st March 1952 dismissing the appeal and to issue further and appropriate directions to Respondents 1 and 3 in the matter of vacating the building and handing over the same to the petitioner for purposes of personal occupation with all mesne profits accrued till then. 2. Respondent 3 is described as the Blackstone Engineering Works, Thampanoor, Trivandrum, which is admitted to be a concern owned by one Raghavan Pillai exclusively. 3. B.R.C. 8/1952 was presented by the petitioner before Respondent 1 on 12th January 1951 for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent. The application was made under the provisions contained in the Travancore-Cochin Buildings (Lease & Rent) Control Order 1950. The Rent Controller allowed the petition and ordered the tenant to surrender possession to the petitioner. One A.K. Bhaskar was the tenant against whom the aforesaid petition and order were made. When the aforesaid petition was pending before Respondent 1 on 4th May 1951 a communication was issued by him to the petitioner asking him to intimate the vacancy of the said building. On 21st May 1951 the petitioner replied referring to the pendency of the aforesaid B.R.C. 8/1951 and pointing out the fact that the building when surrendered would be necessary for his own occupation. 4. On 24th April 1951 Respondent 3 presented an application before Respondent 1 as under: "We beg to submit that T.C. 238 and 239 of the Chenthitta Ward, Pazhavangadi belong to Mr. Anantharamakrishna Iyer of Pavasardari Madam, Thekke Theruvu, Trivandrum Fort, now in the possession of Nava-bharatham Daily and National Printing Works, Ltd., are about to fall vacant. We are badly in need of a building with its premises for developing and enlarging our Engineering Workshops now situated at Marakara Road, Chalai. Anantharamakrishna Iyer of Pavasardari Madam, Thekke Theruvu, Trivandrum Fort, now in the possession of Nava-bharatham Daily and National Printing Works, Ltd., are about to fall vacant. We are badly in need of a building with its premises for developing and enlarging our Engineering Workshops now situated at Marakara Road, Chalai. This institution is run for the benefit of the public for doing such works as moulding, casting, turning, etc., and our workshops have been recognised by the Government and they are also rendering us help in all directions for the advancement and development of this workshop. We, therefore, request you to be so good as to arrange these above two buildings situated in one compound with its premises be ordered to be allotted to us and rent fixed at your earliest convenience". 5. On 28th August 1951 Bhaskar deposited the keys of the building before Respondent 1 who informed the landlord about that fact. On 30th August 1951 Respondent 1 intimated to the petitioner that the building had been allotted to Respondent 3. On 1st September 1951 Respondent 3 approached the petitioner for fixing the rent of the premises. Along with the letter which was sent in that behalf, Respondent 3 sent a money order for Rs. 200 stating that to be the rent for two months at the rate which the previous tenant Bhaskar was paying. On 4th September 1951 the petitioner presented a petition before Respondent 1 challenging the tenancy of Respondent 3 that was imposed upon him and stating further that the building was required for his own occupation. Not having received any reply to this application, on 6th December 1951 he filed a reminder which had the effect of eliciting the order dated 14th February 1952 rejecting the petitioner's application and confirming the allotment in favour of Respondent 3. No enquiry was held by Respondent 1 into the petition presented by the petitioner. The petition was not posted for hearing nor was the petitioner heard upon it. A certified copy of the order produced in Court by the petitioner is marked Ext. B. The ground on which the order is based is that Respondent 3 is doing items of manufacture which are serviceable to the public and the re-treading of the tyres for the State Transport is being done by Respondent 3. A certified copy of the order produced in Court by the petitioner is marked Ext. B. The ground on which the order is based is that Respondent 3 is doing items of manufacture which are serviceable to the public and the re-treading of the tyres for the State Transport is being done by Respondent 3. The order proceeds to say that on an enquiry instituted by Respondent 1 through certain officers, it was known that the building was not required for the personal occupation of the petitioner. It also says that the building would be too big for the petitioner's occupation as the number of members in his family is not large and that the petitioner has, besides this building, many others for his occupation. The petitioner says he came to know about this order only on 7th March 1952 and he sought redress before Respondent 2 by an appeal made on 24th March 1952. The appeal was rejected as belated. 6. The petitioner has come to this Court for relief on the ground that the order passed by Respondent 1 allotting the building to Respondent 3 is ultra vires of his powers under the aforesaid Buildings (Lease & Rent) Control Order. The right of Respondent 1 to allot a building is provided for in Clause. (4), S.3 of the said order. Mr. Varadaraja Iyengar on behalf of the petitioner contends that the present case does not fall within any of the categories under the clause. The Blackstone Engineering Works is a private concern owned by and run for the benefit and profits of one individual, i.e., Respondent 3 alone. It is, therefore, contended that the order of allotment is ultra vires. 7. Mr. T.R. Balakrishna Iyer, learned Government Pleader, appearing for Respondents 1 and 2 was not prepared to support the impugned order. Mr.T.K. Narayana Pillai appearing for Respondent 3 contended that the business run by his client under the name of Blackstone Engineering-Works is an educational institution within the meaning of the aforesaid Clause.(4). In the counter-affidavit presented before this Court Respondent 3 states in Para 3 that "the Blackstone Engineering concern is a public institution" and in Para 4 that "In that institution laboratory apparatus for Colleges, materials for building construction, such as spiral ladder, collapsible gates etc., are made. In the counter-affidavit presented before this Court Respondent 3 states in Para 3 that "the Blackstone Engineering concern is a public institution" and in Para 4 that "In that institution laboratory apparatus for Colleges, materials for building construction, such as spiral ladder, collapsible gates etc., are made. Boys are given tuition in turning, casting and moulding and other technical matters and the institution is a school for that purpose. Tyre re-treading is conducted in the institution; for this recognition as approved re-treader has been given by the Government. The aforesaid institution is now employed by the State Transport and Police Department for re-treading their tyres". Mr. Narayana Pillai argues that this averment has not been controverted by any counter-affidavit on the side of the petitioner. The contention is that being an institution imparting instruction to students as mentioned in the affidavit, it is an educational institution coming within the ambit of Clause.(4) of S.3, for whose purpose an allotment could be made by Respondent 1. One need only peruse the application made by Respondent 3 for allotment (which has been already read and marked in these proceedings as Ext. A) which makes no mention of the fact that instruction of any kind is given to anybody in that institution to reject this plea. Assuming without deciding that instruction is, in fact, given to certain students as alleged in the counter-affidavit, the allotment made by Respondent 1 is not based on that circumstance. The allotment was only on the basis that the work that is being turned out by Respondent 3 though of the private and individual benefit of Raghavan Pillai, is really a work in which the public are interested. Even if instruction is given that circumstance will not make the institution an educational institution within the meaning of Clause.(4) of S. 3. To render it an educational institution it must partake of the character of a public institution as is the case in respect of all the other categories for which allotment could be made under Clause.(4). It happens to me obvious that the allotment made by Respondent 1 is clearly beyond his powers under Clause.(4) of S. 3 and that the order passed by him allotting the building to Respondent 3 cannot be supported which should be and is hereby quashed. It happens to me obvious that the allotment made by Respondent 1 is clearly beyond his powers under Clause.(4) of S. 3 and that the order passed by him allotting the building to Respondent 3 cannot be supported which should be and is hereby quashed. If the order is void there is no need to get it set aside by an appeal made in that behalf before Respondent 2. The circumstance that the appeal presented was out of time and was rejected for that reason is, therefore, immaterial. 8. There is no provision of law under which the keys of a building directed to be surrendered to the landlord could be deposited before the Rent Controller who passed the order for eviction. I am not told under what authority the deposit was made or it was received. The only person entitled to the possession of property under the order was the petitioner and the surrender of the keys or possession of the building to anybody else will not create immunity in favour of the person against whom the order is passed to surrender the building. The allotment of the building to Respondent 3 and its occupation by him are ultra vires. 9. So far as the request to direct Respondent 3 to surrender building to the petitioner is concerned, it appears to me that in the view that I have taken that the allotment is void, it would be up to the parties to adjust their rights in other proceedings. The order for eviction is there in favour of the petitioner. He has the right to execute it and get possession according to law. If the Rent Controller has wrongly passed orders in favour of Respondent 3 and the possession has been given to him, then that possession will be wrongful, but it appears to me that it is beyond the scope of this application for a writ to direct Respondent 3 to surrender possession to the petitioner with mesne profits as requested in the application. 10. The result is that the order of Respondent 1 dated 14th February 1952 which is impugned in the O.P., is quashed and it is declared that the petitioner is entitled to be put in possession of the building pursuant to the order for eviction in his favour passed by Respondent 1 on 12th July 1951. 10. The result is that the order of Respondent 1 dated 14th February 1952 which is impugned in the O.P., is quashed and it is declared that the petitioner is entitled to be put in possession of the building pursuant to the order for eviction in his favour passed by Respondent 1 on 12th July 1951. The petitioner will get his costs from Respondent 3 who alone contested. Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs. 75. Allowed.