Case Note & Summary
The case involved a dispute between a landlord and a tenant over a shop in Agra under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. The landlord sought permission from the District Magistrate to sue for eviction, which was initially denied. On revision, the Commissioner granted permission on October 16, 1959. The tenant then moved the State Government under Section 7(F) to revoke the permission on November 17, 1959. Meanwhile, the landlord served a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and filed a suit for eviction on February 13, 1960, knowing that the revocation application was pending. The trial court decreed the suit on November 2, 1960. During the tenant's appeal, the State Government revoked the permission on January 27, 1961. The first appellate court, relying on this revocation, set aside the decree on February 9, 1961. However, the High Court in second appeal, following a Full Bench decision in Bashi Ram v. Mantri Lal, restored the decree, holding that a revocation after decree does not affect its enforceability. The tenant appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether a decree for eviction obtained after the Commissioner's permission under Section 3(3) becomes unenforceable if the State Government later revokes that permission under Section 7(F) after the decree is passed. The Supreme Court examined the scheme of the Act, noting that while the District Magistrate's order under Section 3(1) is subject to revision by the Commissioner, and the Commissioner's order under Section 3(3) is final but subject to the State Government's power under Section 7(F), there is no provision that a suit validly instituted after permission ceases to be maintainable due to a subsequent revocation. The finality of a decree can only be taken away by clear statutory provision. The Court held that when the Commissioner sets aside the District Magistrate's order and revokes permission before suit, the suit is invalid. However, once a suit is validly instituted, the State Government's power to revoke is exhausted, and any subsequent revocation does not affect the suit or the decree. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Landlord and Tenant - Eviction - Permission to Sue - U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, Sections 3, 7(F) - A suit for eviction validly instituted after obtaining permission under Section 3 of the Act does not become unenforceable or void if the State Government subsequently revokes the permission under Section 7(F) after the decree is passed. There is no provision in the Act invalidating a decree passed in a validly instituted suit due to such revocation. Held that the finality of a decree is not affected by the subsequent revocation as the State Government's power to revoke is exhausted once the suit is validly instituted. B) Landlord and Tenant - Eviction - Permission to Sue - U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, Sections 3(3), 3(4) - If the Commissioner, in revision under Section 3(3), revokes the permission granted by the District Magistrate before the institution of the suit, the suit filed without awaiting the Commissioner's decision is treated as one filed without valid permission and is thus invalid. C) Landlord and Tenant - Eviction - Permission to Sue - U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, Sections 3(1), 7(F) - If the State Government revokes the permission under Section 7(F) before the institution of the suit, there is no valid permission to sue, and any suit filed after such revocation is not maintainable. D) Landlord and Tenant - Eviction - Permission to Sue - U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, Sections 3, 7(F) - The State Government's power under Section 7(F) to revoke permission granted under Section 3(1) is exhausted once a suit for eviction is validly instituted, and any subsequent revocation does not affect the maintainability of the suit or the enforceability of the decree.
Issue of Consideration
Whether a decree for eviction obtained after permission of the Commissioner under Section 3(3) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 becomes unenforceable if the State Government subsequently revokes the permission under Section 7(F) after the decree is passed?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a suit validly instituted after obtaining permission does not become unenforceable if the State Government subsequently revokes the permission under Section 7(F) after the decree is passed. The State Government's power to revoke gets exhausted once the suit is validly instituted. The decree for eviction was upheld.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- A suit validly instituted after obtaining permission under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act
- 1947 does not become unenforceable if the State Government subsequently revokes the permission under Section 7(F) after decree is passed
- State Government's power to revoke permission gets exhausted once suit is validly instituted
- permission revoked by Commissioner before suit renders suit invalid
- permission revoked by State Government before suit renders suit not maintainable.
