Case Note & Summary
The case involved a landlord (respondent) who sought to evict his tenant (appellant) under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act, 1947. The Act restricts the right of landlords to institute suits for eviction except in certain specified grounds, and requires permission from the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate granted such permission. The tenant applied to the Commissioner under Section 3(2) to revise that order, but the Commissioner dismissed the application. The tenant then filed a further revision application before the State Government under Section 7-F. While this revision was pending, the landlord, acting on the permission granted by the Commissioner, filed a suit for eviction. Subsequently, the State Government allowed the tenant's revision and set aside the Commissioner's order, thereby revoking the permission to sue. The tenant then contended that the suit had become incompetent due to the revocation. The legal issue was whether a suit for eviction, valid at the time of institution because permission existed, could be rendered incompetent by a later order of the State Government cancelling that permission retroactively. The Supreme Court considered the scheme of the Act, particularly Sections 3 and 7-F, and held that the competency of a suit is to be judged as of the date of its filing. Since the landlord had obtained the requisite permission and it was in force at the time of instituting the suit, the subsequent revocation by the State Government under Section 7-F did not affect the validity of the suit. Accordingly, the suit did not become incompetent, and the landlord was entitled to proceed with the eviction suit.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Permission to Sue - Effect of Subsequent Revocation - U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act, 1947, Sections 3, 7-F - The landlord obtained permission from the Commissioner under s.3(2) to file an eviction suit after the District Magistrate granted permission and the tenant's revision was dismissed. While the tenant's further revision under s.7-F to the State Government was pending, the landlord filed the suit. The State Government later set aside the Commissioner's order and revoked the permission. The Supreme Court held that the suit, having been filed when the permission was valid, did not become incompetent by the subsequent revocation. (Paras not specified)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a suit for eviction filed after obtaining permission from the Commissioner under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act, 1947 becomes incompetent upon the State Government subsequently revoking that permission under section 7-F
Final Decision
The suit for eviction did not become incompetent. The permission to sue was valid at the time of filing, and the subsequent order of the State Government under section 7-F revoking the permission does not render the suit incompetent.
Law Points
- Suit for eviction filed after obtaining valid permission under U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act
- 1947 remains competent even if the State Government later revokes the permission under Section 7-F
- the competency of the suit is determined as of the date of institution
- a subsequent revocation does not retrospectively invalidate the suit
