BRIJ BHUSHAN LAL BANSAL Vs. NATHU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the owner of an accommodation' of which the respondent No. 1 is a tenant. The ap pellant made an application for permission under Section 3 of U. P. Act HI of 1947 to file a suit for ejectment of respondent No. 1. The permission was refused by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer but on a revision having been filed by the appellant, the Commissioner allowed the application and' granted the necessary permission. This order was upheld by the State Government under Section 7-F of the aforesaid Act. The respondent No. 1 instituted a writ petition in this Court which has been allowed by a learned Single Judge on the ground that neither the Commissioner nor the State Gov ernment compared the needs of the landlord and the tenant as required of them and conse quently their orders were vitiated. The land lord has now filed this special appeal.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appel lant has not been able to satisfy us that either the Commissioner or the State Gov ernment had compared the needs of the landlord and the tenant and consequently on this ground the judgment of the learned Single Judge is unassailable.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Bhagwan Das v. Paras Nath, AIR 1970 SC 971 and Mohammad Ismail v. Nannay Lal, AIR 1970 SC 1919. In the case of Bhagwan Das, AIR 1970 SC 971 (Supra), it was held that a suit validly insti tuted after obtaining permission as required by Section 3 (1) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act does not cease to be maintainable even if the State Government revokes, after the institution of the suit, the permission granted. If the State Government revokes the permission granted before the Institution of the suit then there would be no valid permission to sue. In other words, the State Government's power to revoke the permission granted under Sec tion 3 (1) gets exhausted once the suit is validly instituted. In the case of Mohd. Ismail, AIR 1970 SC 1919 (Supra), it was held that an order under Section 7-F pass ed by the State Government cancelling the permission to sue given by the Commissioner cannot affect a suit filed prior thereto if the landlord had-obtained the necessary sanction from the Commissioner. Jurisdic tion under Section 7-F is only exercisable at a point of time anterior to the filing of a suit and Courts of law can, therefore, dis regard any order under that section which is made after the filing of a suit.