ASHARFI LAL Vs. VAID MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff -appellant came to Court for the ejectment of the defendant and for recovery of arrears of rent.

(2.) The plaintiff was the landlord of the accommodation in dispute of which the defendant was a tenant on Rs. 12.50 p. m. The plaintiff applied for permission under Sec. 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter called the Act). The Rent Control Officer after hearing the parties rejected this application on 15th April, 1960. The plaintiff preferred a revision. The Commissioner decided it on 11th July, 1960, and granted the requisite permission to sue the tenant in ejectment in terms of a compromise filed by the parties' counsel. The tenant then went up to the State Government under Sec. 7 -F of the Act. He challenged the validity of the compromise. The State Government cancelled the Commissioner's order on 21st October, 1961. In the meanwhile, on 7th January, 1961, the plaintiff had filed the present suit. In defence, it was pleaded that the permission granted by the Commissioner having been revoked by the State Government the suit was not maintainable. The validity of the notice to quit was also contested.

(3.) Aggrieved, the plaintiff has come to this Court in second appeal. In Bhagwan Das v/s. Paras Nath, 1968 AWR 713 (SC) the Supreme Court has held that the Commissioner's order under Sec. 3 (3) of the Act remains effective notwithstanding its cancellation by the State Government, provided the State Government's order is passed after the institution of the suit. The present suit was, therefore, maintainable, and liable to be decreed on the basis of the Commissioner's order granting permission.