LAWS(ALL)-1960-9-12

RAM SARUP Vs. SHIKHAR CHAND

Decided On September 13, 1960
RAM SARUP Appellant
V/S
SHIKHAR CHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by Beg, J. but regret that I am unable to agree with the conclusion at which he has arrived,

(2.) The essential facts are not in dispute. The District Magistrate refused to grant permission to the appellants to file a suit for the ejectment or the respondents from the premises occupied by them as tenants of the appellants. This order was made under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act as it stood prior to its amendment by U. P. Act No. XVII of 1954. The appellants then applied to the Commissioner under Sub-section (2) of that section to revise the order. The Commissioner by an order dated the 28th December, 1953, allowed the application, set aside the order of the District" Magistrate and granted the requisite permission. The validity of the Commissioner's order is questioned on the ground that as the Commissioner did not find that the District Magistrate had acted illegally or with material irregularity he had no jurisdiction to set aside the latter's order.

(3.) The powers of the Commissioner in revision are to be found in Sub-section (3). This Sub-section says that the. Commissioner may confirm or set aside the order of the District Magistrate if he is satisfied (a) that the District Magistrate has acted illegally or (b) that the District Magistrate has wrongly refused to act. In my opinion there can be no reasonable doubt (if I may say so with all respect) that the District Magistrate in the present case has acted. He had made a specific order, and it was that order which was the subject of the application in revision. I think therefore that the Commissioner could set aside that order only if he was satisfied that the District Magistrate had in making it acted illegally or with material irregularity.