SHAMSHER ALI Vs. SMT. MOHINI JAGTIANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent filed by the Plaintiff -Respondent after obtaining the permission of the DM as required by Section 3 of the UP (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (to be hereinafter called as the Act). The suit was decreed by the trial Court. An appeal filed by the Defendant against that decree was also dismissed. The Defendant has now filed this second appeal.

(2.) I heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The only point that was urged before me by Sri D.S. Bajpai, learned Counsel for the Appellant was that the permission obtained by the landlord from the DM was not a valid permission in so far as it had been obtained at a time when the tenant had ceased to be the tenant of the premises as his tenancy had been terminated by the landlord by giving a notice Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. According to him it is necessary that the tenancy should subsist upto the time the permission is obtained and it is only after obtaining the permission that the tenancy should be terminated by the landlord by giving him a notice Under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act. This contention of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted in view of the clear language of Section 3 and the consistent view held by this Court on the subject. Section 3 provides that no suit shall without the permission of the DM, b filed in any Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the ground mentioned therein.

(3.) SECTION 3 as it stands clearly shows that the permission of the DM must be obtained before filing the suit and not necessarily before terminating the tenancy by a notice Under Section 106. It is open to the landlord to terminate the tenancy by a notice Under Section 106 at any time. It is equally open to the tenant to comply with the notice and vacate; the premises on the date on which the tenancy is terminated and thereafter he would not be liable to pay any rent to the landlord. But if he does not comply with the notice the landlord cannot file a suit for ejectment against him unless he has obtained the permission of the DM, leaving apart those cases in which one or more of the grounds mentioned in (sic) exist. If the permission of the DM is not obtained and none of the grounds mentioned in that section exists the termination of tenancy would remain ineffectual so long as the Act remains in force. There is, however, nothing in Section 3 to support the proposition that the tenancy can be terminated by a notice Under Section 106 only after obtaining the permission of the DM and not prior to that. As observed by Trivedi J. in the Full Bench decision of Jagannath v. Smt. Chadrawati, 1969 AWR 720 at page 726 of the report: