Gopal Dubey  INSC 53 (25 January 1994)
S. (J) Mohan, S. (J) Mukherjee M.K. (J)
1994 SCC (4) 459
After hearing both the learned counsel, we are clearly of the view that the
findings of the High Court upsetting that of the trial court and the lower
appellate court, cannot be supported. Once the original period of tenancy
namely, eleven months expires, it is the United Provinces (Temporary) Control
of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, that takes over. The result is the rights of
the landlord and tenant are governed by this Act. In other words, the tenant
becomes a statutory tenant. If that be so, the only question would be whether
the permission for instituting a suit under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 3 of
the Act, the permission of the District Magistrate is necessary. No doubt, in
Pradesh Kumar Bajpai v. Benod Behari Sarkar1 it was held that such a permission
may be necessary.
the attention of the Court was not drawn to U.P. Act 44 of 1948 which stated as
Act XLIV of 1948 added the following after the Explanation 1 ( 1980) 3 SCC 348:
(1980) 2 RCR 369 460 'For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that
under Section 3 of the principal Act no permission of the District Magistrate
is or be deemed to ever have been necessary for filing a suit for eviction
against a tenant or any of the grounds mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) of the
said section.' "
Therefore, the judgment of the High Court has to be set aside. It is
accordingly set aside and the civil appeal is allowed with costs.