DWARKA NATH MUNSHI Vs. GAYATRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants appeal from a judgment of our brother Upadhya allowing the respondent's appeal and decreeing her suit.

(2.) The respondent is the owner of a house in Kanpur and the appellant was admittedly its tenant. On 27-3-1953 the respondent applied to the District Magistrate's, Kanpur, for permission to eject the appellant from the house. The District Magistrate's (he was really a subordinate officer authorised by the District Magistrate's, Kanpur, to perform his functions under the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, No. III of 1947) issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why the respondents application be not granted, but he was not present in his office when he took up the application for consideration on 10-7-1953 and he ex-parte granted permission to the respondent. The appellant reached the office soon after the order was passed and applied to the District Magistrate's for setting aside the ex-parte order. On 11-7-1953 the respondent, through a lawyer Sri Shukla, gave notice to the appellant terminating his tenancy with effect from 5-8-1953 and calling upon him to quit before that date. The notice was admittedly received by the appellant, but he did not vacate the house on or by 4-8-1953 and on 5-8-1953 the respondent instituted the suit, giving rise to this appeal, for his ejectment. On 25-9-1953 the District Magistrate's revoked the permission granted ex parte to the respondent and thereafter the appellant filed his written statement contesting the suit on the ground that after the revocation of the permission the suit could not proceed and that the notice to quit given by the lawyer and not signed by the respondent was invalid. The trial court rejected the pleas of the appellant and decreed the suit. On appeal a Civil Judge dismissed the suit solely on the ground that the notice to quit was not valid. On second appeal, our brother Upadhya held that the notice was valid and rejecting the appellants contention that after the revocation of the permission the suit could not proceed and could not be decreed, allowed the appeal and restored the trial court's decree.

(3.) Three questions arise in this appeal, (1) whether the revocation of the permission affected the further proceedings in the suit and barred its being decreed, (2) whether the District Magistrate's had the jurisdiction to revoke the permission at all and (3) whether the notice to quit was invalid because it was signed not by the respondent but by a lawyer.