Purshottam Das Vs. Smt. Raj Mani Devi
[1968] INSC 264 (30 October 1968)
30/10/1968 BACHAWAT, R.S.
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
therefore maintainable. [578 H] Bhagwan Das v. Paras Nath, [1969] 2 S.C.R. 297,
distinguished.
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 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.
Back
