R N SETH Vs. GIRJA SHANKER SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Lucknow reversing in part the judgment and decree of the Munsif, North Lucknow, dismissing the respondent's suit against the appellant for arrears of rent and ejectment from a certain house. The lower appellate Court decreed the respondent's suit for ejectment but dismissed it with respect to the claim for arrears of rent. The appellant has come up in second appeal to this Court.

(2.) The only questions that arise in this appeal are of law. Admittedly the appellant is the tenant of the respondent in the house in dispute. The respondent gave him the requisite fifteen days' notice as required under Section 106, T. P. Act, 1882 and produced evidence of his having been given the necessary permission by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer of Lucknow under Section 3, U. P. Control and Eviction Act, 1947, for the institution of the suit. The fact that such permission was given by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer of Lucknow on 28-4-1947, before the institution of the suit is not denied. The appellant's contention is that the permission given by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was subsequently revoked by the District Magistrate, Lucknow, by an order dated 24-7-1947, and that the suit is, therefore, not maintainable, having regard to the provisions of Section 3 of Act III [3] of 1947. It will be noted that under that section no suit for ejectment except on one or more of the ground mentioned in Clauses (a) to (f) of that section can be instituted without the permission of the District Magistrate. The appellant's further contention, however, is that no suit against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation can be instituted except on one or more of the grounds mentioned in Clauses (a) to (f) of that section and that too with the previous permission of the District Magistrate. According to the findings of the Court below none of the grounds mentioned in Clauses (a) to (f) of this section exists in the present case and if this further contention of learned counsel for the appellant is accepted the suit is not maintainable. Reliance is placed on the case of Bhagat Singh Bugga & Co. v. Mrs. Gangotri Devi, A.I.R. 1949 Oudh 11 decided by a single Judge of the Oudh Chief Court. In another unreported case of the Oudh Chief Court, Gokaran Nath Yajnik v. Sheo Ram Upadhyaya, S. A. No. 636 of 1947, D/- 11-9-1947, however, a different view was taken and it was held that it was only in cases which were not covered by Clauses (a) to (f) of the section that the permission of the District Magistrate was necessary before the institution of a suit for the eviction of a tenant. The Allahabad High Court has in a later case taken the same view. It will be noted that subsequently the U. P. Legislature passed an Act, the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction (Amendment) Act, 1948, Section 10 of which makes it clear that under Section 3 of the Act

(3.) What remains now to be considered is the effect of the cancellation by the District Magistrate of the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 28-4-1947. The learned District Judge was inclined to hold that there was nothing in the Act empowering the District Magistrate to delegate his functions under Section 3 of the Act to another officer, although in view of the fact that the point was not raised before him, he proceeded on the assumption that such power had in fact been conferred by the Act upon the District Magistrate. No doubt, there is no specific provision in the Act to that effect. But the term 'District Magistrate' is defined in Section 2 (d) as follows: