VIRANWALI Vs. HARBANS SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment dated 15-5-1971 of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Banda, allowing the defendant-respondent's appeal and dismissing the plaintiff's suit for-ejectment, arrears of rent and damages.

(2.) The relevant facts, as recorded by the court below, are that the property in suit is an "accommodation" within the meaning of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (Act No. III of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The defendant-respondent was the tenant of the same and the plaintiff-appellant was his landlady. The plaintiff obtained the necessary permission under Sec. 3 of the Act from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer who had been duly authorised by the District Magistrate to grant such permissions, and filed the suit on the basis of the permission obtained. The defendant-respondent went up in revision to the Commissioner against the order granting the permission and the permission was cancelled by the Commissioner. Thereafter the plaintiff-appellant west up to the State Government under Sec. 7-F of the Act and the State Government set aside the order of the Commissioner and confirmed the permission granted by the Rent Control and Eviction officer. Against the order of the State Government under Sec. 7-F of the Act the respondent filed a Writ Petition (Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 3229 of 1964) in this court which was dismissed on 23-10-1964. Thereafter the respondent filed a Special Appeal No. 982 of which was also dismissed on the 25th of Jan., 1966.

(3.) The questions raised in this Court in this Second Appeal are whether the decision of the High Court in the writ petition regarding the validity of the permission granted by the State Government under Sec. 7-F of the Act would act as res judicata between the parties in this case and secondly whether in view of the provisions of Sec. 3(4) and 16 of the Act, the Civil Court can enter into the question as to whether the permission granted by the State Government under Sec. 7-F of the Act is not a valid permission because the State Government did not give reasons in support of the order granting the permission.