RAM CHARAN DAS Vs. BRIJ MOH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. The respondent who is the landlord of the accommodation in dispute made an application against the appellant who was his tenant under Section 3 of U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (U.P. Act No. 3 of 1947) for permission to file a suit for ejectment on the ground that he required the accommodation for his personal need. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer granted the requisite permission on February 26, 1970. On the basis of that permission the suit giving rise to the present second appeal was instituted by the respondent en March 28, 1970. In the meantime the appellant had filed a revision before the Commissioner against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated February 26, 1970. The revision was allowed and the case was remanded by the Commissioner to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for being decided afresh. Thereafter the Rent Control and Eviction Officer again granted the permission applied for by his order dated February 26, 1971. This order was upheld by the Commissioner on June 15, 1972. On a revision filed by the appellant. The order of the Commissioner was not challenged before the State Government Tinder Section 7-F of the Act aforesaid and became final.

(2.) THE suit had been instituted on the basis of the aforesaid permission as also on the ground that the appellant had denied the title of the respondent. It was contested by the appellant and was dismissed by the trial court on November 25, 1972. The Munsif recorded a finding in favour of the appellant that he had not denied the title of the respondent. He also held that since the Commissioner in the revision filed by the appellant had passed an orded on March 21, 1970, staying the operation of the order dated February 26, 1970, the suit filed on the basis of the said order on March 28, 1970, was not maintainable. The Munsif further held that the fact whether the order of stay had or had not been communicated to the respondent was immaterial. On appeal by the respondent the appellate Court recorded a finding that the order of stay was communicated to the plaintiff for the first time on March 31, 1970, and since the suit had been filed prior to that on March 28, 1970, the suit was maintainable.

(3.) IN S. K. L. Jain v. Mani Ram 1975 A.L.J. 341 the requisite permission to file a suit had been granted by the Commissioner and a suit had been filed within four days thereof. It was held that there was no law which required a landlord to wait for the tenant to approach the State Government and to obtain a stay order. A similar view was taken in Ram Saran Dhondha Ram v. I Additional Munsif, Azamgarh and others 1965 A,L.J. 964 where it was held that the landlord was under no obligation to wait for the tenant to approach the Commissioner and obtain orders under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act aforesaid. It is thus clear that on the permission being granted on February 26, 1970, it was not incumbent upon the landlord to have waited for 30 days, which is the time prescribed for filing a revision to the Commissioner under sub-section (2) of Section 3, before instituting a suit on its "basis. In the instant case, however, it will be seen that the suit had actually been instituted after waiting for more than 30 days. The order dated February 26, 1970, was set aside by the Commissioner and the case was remanded for being decided afresh. Subsequently the application for permission was again allowed on February 26, 1971. It is the effect of the order of remand passed by the Commissioner which has to be considered in the present appeal. In Purshottam Das's case (supra) the facts were that the requi- site permission was granted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on October 11, 1961. A suit was instituted on its basis on October 14, 1961. On March 27, 1962, the Commissioner revoked the permission granted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Against that order k the landlord made an application to the State Government under Section 7-F of the Act. The State Government set aside the order of the Commissioner on March 30, 1963, and gave leave to the landlord to file the suit with effect from July 30, 1963. From the facts of that case it is clear that the State Government had granted a fresh permission which was to be effective from July 30, 1963. It was urged in that case that the suit was not maintainable as instituted on October 14, 1961. This plea was repelled and it was held: -