NAROTAM RAM Vs. NAROTAM PRASAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment from the house in dispute and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. The trial court decreed the suit and the first appellate court dismissed the defendant's appeal. The premises were such to which the provisions of the U. P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act applied. The suit had been filed on the basis of a permission from the District Magistrate under Sec. 3 of the Act.

(2.) In the appeal learned counsel has pressed two points. The first is that the court below has erred in not considering itself the needs of the parties. According to him, if the needs of the parties had been properly considered the permission could not have been granted to the landlord for filing the present suit. The second submission of the learned counsel is that the notice to terminate the tenancy was given before the permission was obtained. On both the points the lower appellate court has held against the appellant.

(3.) In support of the first contention learned counsel has relied an the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ismail Vs. Nanney Lal, 1969 R.C.J. 453 and also on the decision of this Court reported in Asa Singh Vs. B. D. Sanwal and others, A.I.R. 1969 Allahabad 474, and in Dwarka Prasad and others Vs. Additional Commissionerm 1966 A.L.J. 850. The following observation in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ismail (supra) has been stressed:-