MOHAMMAD ISMAIL Vs. NANNEY LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in this appeal by special leave is, whether a suit for eviction of a tenant by a landlord, after obtaining the permission of the Commissioner under sub-s. (3) of S. 3 of the Uttar Pradesh (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 becomes incompetent, on the making of an order by the State Government under S. 7-F cancelling the permission to sue given by the Commissioner.

(2.) The relevant facts for disposal of this appeal are as follows. The respondent-landlord obtained permission of the District Magistrate to file a suit for eviction against the appellant under S. 3 (1) of the Act on May 29, 1961. The tenant went up to the Commissioner of Agra Division under S. 3 (2) of the Act. On July 26, 1961 the Commissioner dismissed the revision application. The tenant then filed a further revision application to the State Government under S. 7-F of the Act. Before the disposal of the last revision application, the landlord filed a suit for ejectment on January 18, 1962 in the court of the Munsif, Etah in pursuance of the permission given by the Commissioner. On June 16, 1962 the State Government set aside the order of the Commissioner and revoked the permission granted to the landlord. The suit was dismissed by the Munsif of Etah on November 17, 1962. The Civil Judge of Etah allowed the appeal of the landlord on September 28, 1963. The tenant went up in Second Appeal to the High Court. On December 13, 1968 a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the tenant's appeal following a judgment of this Court in Bhagwan Das vs. Paras Nath, CA No. 1617 of 1968 D/- 27-9-1968 . Learned counsel for the appellant contended that some aspects of the question had not been raised before and/or considered by this Court on the prior occasion which might have induced the Court to come to a different conclusion. Having heard counsel at some length, we are convinced that there is no merit in his submissions. We respectfully agree with the decision in Bhagwan Das's case, CA No. 1617 of 1968 D/- 27-9-1968 (supra) and are satisfied that counsel has not been able to show that any relevant aspect of the question was not considered on the former occasion.

(3.) There was no unanimity of opinion in the Allahabad High Court as regards the effect of an order passed by the State Government contrary to the Commissioner's order on the basis of which a suit for eviction was filed in the subordinate Courts. So far as the High Court was concerned, the matter was laid at rest by a Full Bench decision in the case of Bashi Ram vs. Mantri Lal, ILR (1965) 1 All 545 (FB). This Court while not concurring with all that was said in Bashi Ram's case, (supra) agreed with the full Bench that a suit validly instituted after obtaining permission as required by S. 3 did not cease to be maintainable even if the State Government thereafter revoked the permission granted.