CHHOTEY KHAN Vs. KHAIRATI LAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment from a shop. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. On appeal by the plaintiff the lower appellate court decreed the suit. Hence the second appeal by the defendant-appellant.

(2.) The plaint case was that the defendants were the tenants of the shops in dispute at a monthly rental of Rupees 15.94 including the house tax. The plaintiff applied for and was granted a permission under Sec. 3 of the U. P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act to file a suit. The permission was granted by the District Magistrate. On a revision preferred by the tenants, the Commissioner by his order dated 28-1-1966 while dismissing the revision modified the permission by adding a condition that the permission shall not be operative until one Mahesh Chandra Jain the son of the landlord came to reside in the house in dispute at Bulandshahr and continued to do so throughout the pendency of the litigation. This condition was illegal and inoperative in law and was liable to be ignored. A notice to quit was given to the defendant but they did not comply. Hence the suit for ejectment as well as the recovery of Rs. 565.96 P. as arrears of rent including damages for use and occupation.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendants. Their defence was that the conditions imposed by the Commissioner in his order dated 28-1-1966 was valid and binding on the plaintiff-landlord and that, inasmuch as, the condition had not been complied with by the landlord, there was no effective permission available to the plaintiff for filing the suit. The suit was, therefore, barred under Sec. 3 of the U. P. Temporary Control of Rent & Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act No. 3 of 1947). As regards the claim for arrears of rent it was asserted that the defendant had sent the amount to the plain- tiff but that the plaintiff refused to accept the same, as a result of which the defendants were compelled to deposit the same under Sec. 7-C of the aforesaid Act. The bar of Sec. 16 of the aforesaid Act was also pleaded on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to ignore the condition subject to which alone the permission was granted to the plaintiff for instituting the suit.