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.126 All. [Prs. 2-51 Asharfi v. Mohan Lal (S. Chandra J.) The plaintiff applied for permission under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Con trol of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter called the Act). The Rent Control Officer after hearing the parties rejected this ap plication on 15th April, 1960. The plaintiff preferred a revision. The Commissioner decided it on llth 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 Section 7-F of the Act. He chal lenged the validity of the compromise. The State Government cancelled the Com missioner'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 In defence, it was pleaded that the permis sion granted by the Commissioner having been revoked by the State Government the suit was not maintainable. The vali dity of the notice to quit was also con tested. The trial Court held that the State Government's order did not affect the maintainability of the suit. It was validly instituted because the Commissioner's permission was in operation on the date of the institution of the suit. The notice to quit was held valid. The suit was, therefore, decreed for ejectment and re covery of the arrears of rent. The defen dant-tenant went up in appeal. The ap pellate Court held that the ultimate order passed by the State Government was the only effective order. Consequently the plaintiff had no permission to sustain the suit. It dismissed the suit for ejectment, but decreed the relief for arrears of rent.

(3.) MR . H. N. Seth for the respondent sought to challenge the correctness of the Commissioner's order. For the appellant Dr. Gyan Prakash raised an objection that in view of the provisions of the Act, the order of the Commissioner could not be called in question in a Civil Court. He relied on Sections 16 and 3 (4) of the Act. Section 16 provides that no order made under this Act by the State Government or the District Magistrate shall be called in question in any Court. This provision does not mention the Commissioner. It cannot, therefore, be said that there is any express exclusion of the Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate the correctness of an order made by the Commissioner. Sec tion 3 (4) of the Act states that the order of the Commissioner under sub-section (3) shall, subject to any order passed by the State Government under Section 7-F, be final. Under this provision, the order of the Commissioner would be final so far as the Civil Courts are concerned. Under Section 7-F, the State Government can make such order as may appear to it necessary in the ends of justice. It can look into the propriety, correctness or legality of the Commissioner's order.