ATA MOHD. MISTRI Vs. RADHEY SHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter arises out of rent control proceedings relating to two shops (Nos. 192 and 193) situated in Kaiserganj in Meerut City. The appellant is the tenant of the shops and the respondent the landlord. Litigation between the parties extends back to almost 10 years. As far back as April 16, 1960, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed the first order between the parties by which he gave five months' time to the tenant to vacate the premises. Later, on revision, the order of the Commissioner was made on Aug. 30, 1961. In that order the Commissioner stated that the tenant ought to have vacated the premises and observed that 16 months had passed since the order was made and noticed that the premises were not vacated till then. He ordered immediate eviction. On the day following the order of the Commissioner the landlord served a notice on the tenant asking him to vacate the premises within 30 days of the receipt of the notice. It appears that the tenant went twice before the State Government in Revision. In the second of the orders made by the State Government, no interference was made but time for vacating the premises was extended to Dec. 31, 1963. Meanwhile, a suit had been filed against the tenant on foot of the notice and a decree had been obtained.

(2.) In this appeal, the sole question is whether after the order of the State Government extending time till Dec. 31, 1963, for vacating the premises the order of the Commissioner fell to the ground and the notice and the suit became incompetent. A similar question was raised before this Court and a Division Bench in Civil Appeal No. 1617 of 1968 Bhagwan Das Vs. Paras Nath decided on Sept. 27, 1968 , held that the Commissioner's order must be treated as final and if the suit is filed before the order of the State Government is made, the suit continues to be competent. That decision is binding on us and closes the matter. There is, therefore, no force in this appeal which must fail. We have however considered the question whether we should order immediate eviction of the appellant from the premises. On representations made to us (which were accepted by counsel for the respondent) we allow him time to vacate the premises on or before Dec. 31, 1969. The appellant gives an undertaking to this Court that he shall vacate the premises without any process of court and that peaceful possession will be handed over to the respondent. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed with costs subject to the direction that the tenant shall remain in possession till Dec. 31, 1969 and that he shall vacate it on or before Dec. 31, 1969. Appeal dismissed.