RAM SWARUP Vs. SHIKAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant No. 1, Lala Ram Swarup, and five other members of his family sued the two respondents, Shikar Chand and his son, for ejectment from the shop situated in Qasba Chandausi, Bazar Waram, on the allegation that the said premises had been let out to the respondents to conduct their shop on a monthly rent with effect from the 11th April 1952, for a year. At the time when the present suit was brought, the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (U. P. Act III of 1947) (hereinafter called 'the Act') was in force. Section 3 of the Act imposes certain restrictions on the landlord's right to eject his tenant from the premises to which the Act applies. Broadly stated, the effect of the provisions contained in S. 3 (1) is that a landlord can evict his tenant if he satisfies two conditions. The first condition is that he must obtain the permission of the District Magistrate to file such a suit; and the second condition is that he must prove the existence of one or the other of the seven grounds enumerated in Cls. (a) to (g) of S. 3 (1). We shall presently refer to the relevant provisions of this section.

(2.) In their plaint, the appellants pleaded that they needed the premises in suit to carry on their own businesses in the shop, and they alleged that they had applied for permission to the District Magistrate, Moradabad, under s. 3 (1) of the Act; that the said permission had been refused by him, whereupon they had moved the Commissioner in his revisional jurisdiction under S. 3 (2) of the Act; and that the Commissioner had given them permission to file the suit that is how the appellants claimed to have satisfied both the conditions prescribed by Section 3 (1). The appellants further claimed ejectment of the respondents and asked for a decree for damages for use and occupation of the suit premises form 11th April 1953 to 11th July 1954 @ Rs.35 per month. The suit (No. 349 of 1954) was filed on the 14th July 1954.

(3.) The respondents resisted the claim made by the appellants on several grounds. They urged that the suit was bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties; that the permission to sue granted to the appellants by the Commissioner was not valid in law, that the rent note executed by them was not admissible in evidence: and that the notice given by the appellants under S. 108 of the Transfer of Property Act was also invalid in law.