T. GUPTA CHAUDHURI Vs. MANMATHA NATH GHATAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule has been obtained by a tenant, against whom an order has been passed that a suit in ejectment is maintainable. The Rule is opposed by the landlord.

(2.) THE facts necessary to be stated for the purposes of this Rule briefly are these: The landlord instituted a suit against the tenant for ejectment on the ground that he required the premises bona fide for his own use. He obtained the permission of the Rent Controller to institute this suit in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Control Order of 1943. The suit was dismissed and a fresh suit was instituted, this time without any permission, on August 6, 1947. This is the suit, out of which this application arises. In this suit, a preliminary issue was raised as to whether the suit was maintainable without the permission of the Rent Controller. That preliminary issue has been decided by the learned Munsif, who has held that, by virtue of certain provisions of the new West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948, no permission is necessary from the Rent Controller and that the suit is entertainable by him. Against this order, the present Rule has been obtained by the tenant.

(3.) IT is quite clear from the provisions of this section that until the permission of the Rent Controller had been obtained a suit of the nature mentioned in the section could not be entertained by the court. There is no controversy regarding this matter. Learned advocate for the opposite party, however, contends that such permission may be obtained after the institution of the suit. He points to the fact that in the sub -section quoted above the words "entertained" and "institute" are used and his argument is that the permission of the Rent Controller can be obtained after the institution of the suit. He says that the section does not lay it down that no suit shall be instituted until the permission is first obtained, but that the words in the section are that no suit shall be entertained by any court until permission has been obtained. I am not impressed by this argument and for this reason. The section postulates that the landlord must obtain an order in writing from the Rent Controller permitting him to institute the suit. I would draw attention to the words "to institute". Permission must be taken before institution. The permission relates to institution. The position would have been different if the section said that permission of the Rent Controller had to be taken to continue or maintain the suit. Under the section, permission is a prerequisite to the institution. Any suit, which has been instituted without such permission, is, in my opinion, no suit at all in the eye of the law and the defect of not obtaining permission cannot be cured by the subsequent obtaining of permission. Any permission given subsequently must relate to the continuation of the suit, it cannot be permission to institute the suit, because the suit has already been instituted. For these reasons I hold that the present suit, which was instituted without any permission having been first obtained, is in the eye of the law no suit at all and is liable to be dismissed.