Case Note & Summary
The dispute pertained to the maintainability of an eviction suit filed by the respondent-landlord against the appellant-tenant in respect of a house in Allahabad, governed by the U.P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. The landlord had obtained the requisite permission from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Section 3(1) of the Act on October 11, 1961. The suit for ejectment was instituted on October 14, 1961. Subsequently, the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, acting under Section 3(3), revoked the permission on March 27, 1962. The landlord then invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the State Government under Section 7F, which, by order dated March 30, 1963, set aside the Commissioner’s revocation and directed that the landlord may file the suit after four months, effectively making the permission operative from July 30, 1963. Meanwhile, the trial court had decreed the suit on July 11, 1963, but the appellate court set aside that decree and remanded the suit for fresh trial. After remand, the trial court again decreed the suit on March 2, 1964, holding that the permission became effective from July 30, 1963, and since the suit was still pending, a decree could validly be passed. The first appellate court and the High Court affirmed this decision. The tenant appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether there was a valid permission under Section 3(1) to sustain the suit at the time the decree was passed, given the earlier revocation and the subsequent order of the State Government. The appellant relied on Bhagwan Das v. Paras Nath, [1969] 2 SCR 297, contending that once the Commissioner revoked the permission, the suit became incompetent and the later order under Section 7F could not cure the defect. The respondent argued that the State Government’s order, by setting aside the Commissioner’s order, restored the original permission, and the direction meant the permission was effective from July 30, 1963, when the suit was pending. The Supreme Court distinguished Bhagwan Das, noting that in that case the permission had been granted by the Commissioner (not the Rent Control Officer) and the suit was validly instituted; the State Government could not subsequently revoke it. Here, the suit was initially validly instituted under Section 3(1), and the Commissioner’s revocation did render it incompetent, but Section 3(4) made the Commissioner’s order subject to an order under Section 7F. Consequently, when the State Government set aside the revocation, the original permission under Section 3(1) revived. The Court further interpreted the State Government’s direction to file suit after four months as meaning that the permission would become effective only upon expiry of that period, i.e., from July 30, 1963. Since the decree was passed on March 2, 1964, the landlord had a valid permission at that time. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Ejectment Suit - Permission Requirement under Rent Control Legislation - U.P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, Sections 3(1), 3(3), 7F - Landlord obtained permission under Section 3(1) to file suit for eviction; Commissioner under Section 3(3) revoked the permission; State Government under Section 7F set aside the revocation and directed that permission would apply four months later. Held that once the State Government sets aside the Commissioner's revocation order, the original permission under Section 3(1) revives, and if the suit remains pending, a decree can be passed. The condition to file suit after four months meant permission became effective after that period, and since decree was passed thereafter, the suit was maintainable. (Paras 3-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether there was a valid permission to institute the suit under Section 3(1) of the U.P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, when the decree was passed.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The suit was maintainable as the permission under Section 3(1) revived and was effective from July 30, 1963, and the decree passed on March 2, 1964 was valid.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- If State Government sets aside Commissioner's revocation order under Section 7F
- the original permission under Section 3(1) revives
- suit becomes validly instituted. Effective date of permission is as directed by State Government. Decree passed after effective date is maintainable.
