AFZAL AHMAD NAQVI Vs. KUNJ BEHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by Afzal Ahmad Naqvi and arises from the judgment and de cree dated 24-9-1971 passed by the Civil Judge. Lucknow. setting aside the de cree passed by Munsif North. Lucknow, in favour of the plaintiff-respondents.

(2.) THE respondents filed a suit against the appellant in the Court of Munsif North. Lucknow. for a decree for ejectment and arrears of rent on the ground that the defendant was their tenant in a certain house of which they were landlords, that the respondents had moved an application for permission to file a suit for ejectment under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter call ed the Act) which permission was grant ed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. This permission was set aside by the Commissioner in revision; Where upon the respondents filed a revision before the State Government by an order dated 5-8-1966 allowed the revi sion and granted to the respondents per mission to file a suit for ejectment against the defendant. One of the grounds on which the suit was resisted in the trial Court was that the order of the State Government passed under Section 7-F of the Act was without jurisdiction and ultra vires. It is not necessary for purposes of the present appeal to state the other pleas taken for the defendant. The Munsif found that the notice served on the defen dant was invalid and upheld the plea that the order of the State Govern ment passed under Section 7-F was no order in the eye of law as it did not give reasons. Upon these findings the suit for ejectment was dismissed and a decree was granted only for arrears of rent. The plaintiff appealed and the only point urged before the lower ap pellate Court was that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to go into the ques tion of validity of the permission grant ed by the State Government under Sec tion 7-F on account of the bar of Sec tion 16 of the Act. The lower appellate Court disagreed with the Munsif and held that the order of the State Gov ernment under Section 7-F was a speak ing order and that the Civil Court could not enter into the question of validity of the permission granted by the State Gov ernment. The appeal was allowed and the plaintiff was granted a decree for ejectment also. It is in these circum stances that the defendant comes to this Court in second appeal.

(3.) I have heard arguments of Sri Badre Habib Siddiqui appearing for the appel lant and Sri Ram Krishna Srivastava and Sri M. L. Trivedi for the respon dents. I do not agree with the submis sion that this is not a speaking order. The order shows that it was passed after an examination of the record of the case and due consideration of the version of the opposite party and having regard to all other relevant facts pertaining to the case. It is not disputed that both the parties had an opportunity of hear ing before this order was passed and, therefore, there is no manner of doubt that the order was passed on a careful consideration of the entire material placed before the State Government and the contentions raised for the two sides. The order does give reasons for grant ing permission to the respondents al though the reasons may not be detailed ones.