http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: PURSHOTTAM DAS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SMT. RAJ MANI DEVI

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/10/1968

BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. SIKRI, S.M.

CITATION:  1970 AIR  763            1969 SCR  (2) 588

ACT:     U.P. (Temp.) Control of  Rent  and  Eviction  Act  1947, ss.  3 and 7F--Rent Control Officer permitted institution of suit   for   ejectment--Suit   filed--Commissioner   revokes permission--State     Government     allows    filing     of suit--Defence for ejectment passed--Effect.

HEADNOTE:     The respondent-landlord obtained permission to institute a  suit  from the Rent Control & Eviction Officer  under  s. 3(1)  of the U.P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction  Act, 1947, for ejecting from his house the Appellant-tenant.  The respondent    filed  a  suit  for  eviction   against    the appellant.   Later  the Commissioner acting  under  s.  3(3) revoked  the permission  But the State Government  on  March 30,  1963 acting under   s. 7F set aside the  Commissioner’s order  and  gave leave to the respondent to  file  the  suit after 4 months of the date of the order i.e., July 30. 1963. On  July  11, 1963 the trial court decreed  the  suit.   The appellant filed an appeal. The appellate court set aside the trial court’s decree and remanded the suit for fresh  trial. On  remand, the trial  court  decreed the suit on  March  2, 1964  holding  that  the permission  granted  by  the  State Government  became effective from July 30, 1963 and  as  the suit  was.  still pending a decree could be  passed  in  the suit.  This  decision was affirmed by  the  first  appellate court,  and also by the High Court. Dismissing  the  .appeal this Court.     HELD:  If the State Government acting  under s. 7F  sets aside    the   order  of  the  Commissioner   revoking   the permission.   the order  under s. 3(1) granting   permission is  revived.   The  ’result is that there  is  an  effective permission to institute the suit under s. 3(1) and the  suit is validity instituted. [578 D]     The  direction of the ’State ’Government  to  file   the suit   after  four  months  of  the  order  meant  that  the permission  under  s.  3(1) would become  effective  on  the expiry  of 4 months i.e. from July 30, 1963.   The  landlord had  thus an effective permission to  institute   the   suit under  s. 3(1) from  July 30, 1963.  The decree in the  suit was passed on March 2. 1964.  On that date the landlord  had a  valid  permission to institute the suit.   The  suit  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

therefore maintainable. [578 H] Bhagwan   Das   v.  Paras  Nath,  [1969]   2   S.C.R.   297, distinguished.

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1449  of 1966.     Appeal  by  special leave from the judgment  and  decree dated April 28, 1966  of the AIIahabad High Court in  Second Appeal No. 289  of 1965.     M.K.  Ramatnurthi, Shyamala Pappu and Vineet Kumar,  for the appellant.     B.C.  Misra, O. Prakash, R.K. Mathur and  M.V.  Goswami, for the respondent. 577 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     Bachawat,  J.  The  appellant  is  the  tenant  and  the respondent  is  the landlord of House No. 5B, Old  122  Maya Mirganj,  Allahabad.   The appeal arises out of a  suit  for ejectment by the landlord against the tenant from the house. On  October  11, 1961, the landlord obtained  permission  to institute  the  suit  from the  Rent  Control  and  Eviction Officer under s.  3 (1) of the  U.P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and  Eviction Act, 1947.  On October 14, 1961  the  landlord instituted  the  present  suit   for  eviction  against  the tenant.   On   March 27,  1962  the  Commissioner  Allahabad Division  acting  under s. 3 (3) revoked the  permission  to institute the suit.  On March 30, 1963 the State  Government acting  under s. 7F set aside the Commissioner’s  order  and gave  leave  to the landlord to file the  suit  with  effect from  July   30,  1963.  On July 11, 1963  the  Trial  Court decreed  the suit.  The tenant filed an appeal  against  the decree.   On November 4, 1963 the appellate court set  aside the decree and remanded the suit for fresh trial.  After the suit went back on remand the Trial Court decreed the suit on March  2,  1964.  The Trial Court held that  the  permission granted  by the State Government became effective from  July 30, 1963 and as the suit was still pending a decree could be passed  in  the  suit.  An appeal against  the  decree   was dismissed  on  November  28, 1964.   A  second  appeal   was dismissed by the High Court on April 28, 1966.  The  present appeal has been filed by the tenant after obtaining  special leave.   The sole question in the appeal is whether  in  the circumstances there was a valid permission to institute  the suit under s. 3 (1 ).     In Bhagwan Das  v. Paras Nath(1) this Court held that  a suit  validly instituted after obtaining permission  of  the Commissioner under s. 3(3) did not become incompetent if the State  Government acting under s. 7F revoked the  permission after  the  institution  of  the suit.   In  that  case  the District  Magistrate refused to give permission under  s.  3 (1)  to. institute the suit.  The Commissioner acting  under s.  3  (3)  set aside the order and  granted  permission  to institute  the  suit.  The suit was  decreed by   the  Trial Court  on  November  2, 1960.  The tenant  filed  an  appeal against  the decree.  During the pendency of the appeal  the State  Government acting under s. 7F revoked the  permission granted  by  the Commissioner.  The Court held  that  though the order under s. 3(3) was subject to an order under s.  7F the  Government’s power under s. 7F to revoke the permission granted  by the Commissioner became exhausted once the  suit was  validly instituted. In  support of his contention that the present suit  is  not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

maintainable,   the  appellant  relies  on   the   following observations  of Hegde, J. :- [1969] 2 S.C.R. 297. 578                      "When  the   Commissioner  sets   aside               the  order passed by the  District  Magistrate               granting   permission  to  file  a  suit   for               ejecting   a  tenant,  the   order   of    the               Commissioner  prevails.   If  he  cancels  the               permission granted by the District  Magistrate               there is no effective permission left and  the               suit  instituted by the plaintiff  without  a-               waiting  his decision must be treated as   one               filed  without  any valid  permission  by  the               District Magistrate." Having  regard  to  these observations  the   present   suit though  validly instituted after obtaining  the   permission under  s.  3 (1) became incompetent when the permission  was revoked by  the Commissioner under s. 3 (3).  But the  order under s. 3 (3) itself was set aside by the State  Government under  s. 7F during the pendency of the suit.  The  question is  what is the effect of this order under s. 7F.   Now,  s. 3(4)  provides that the order of the Commissioner  under  s. 3(3)  subject  to an order passed by  the  State  Government under  s.  7F.  If the State Government acting under  s.  7F sets  aside  the  order of  the  Commissioner  revoking  the permission, the order under s. 3 (1) granting permission  is revived.    The  result  is  that  there  is  an   effective permission to institute the suit under s. 3 (1) and the suit is validly instituted.     In  Bhagwan  Das’s  Case (1)  the   suit   was   validly instituted after obtaining permission from the  Commissioner under s. 3 (3).  The State Government could not  render such a   suit  incompetent  by any order under  s.  7F.   In  the present case the suit was validly instituted after obtaining permission from  the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under s.  3  (1).   The effect of the order  of  the  Commissioner revoking   the   permission  was  that   the   suit   became incompetent.  The State  Government  acting under s. 7F  had power  to revise and set aside the Commissioner’s order  and restore the permission granted under s. 3 (1) so as to  make the suit competent.     The order of the State Government after stating that  in the interest of justice the house should be available to the landlord  for  his use, set aside the  Commissioner’s  order under  s.  3(3). The result was that the order of  the  Rent Control  and Eviction Officer passed .under s. 3  (1)  stood restored.   The  further  direction in the  order  that  the landlord  "is advised to file a suit for eviction  from  the house in dispute against the opposite party in a civil court under s. 3 of the Act, which will be applicable four  months after  the  date  of  the  order"  really  means  that   the permission  under  s.  3(1) would become  effective  on  the expiry  of  4 months.  The landlord had  thus  an  effective permission to institute the suit under s. 3(1) on the expiry of four months from March 30, 1963, that is to say, as  from July  30,  1963.  The (1) [1969] 2 S.C.R. 297. 579 decree in the suit was passed on March 2, 1964. On that date the  landlord had a valid permission to institute the  suit. The suit was therefore maintainable. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  There will no order as to costs. Y.P.               Appeal dismissed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

580