1. Landlord sought eviction permission under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act; State Government revised the order under Section 7-F. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1965 Supreme(SC) 63
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
1st March 1965
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.
Lala Shri Bhagwan and another, Appellants
Versus
Ram Chand and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 764 of 1964.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate, (M/s. B. R. L. Iyengar, S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, advocates, with him), for Appellants; Mr. C. B. Agarwala, Senior Advocate, (M/s. S. S. Khanduja and Ganpat Rai, Advocate, with him, for Respondents.
Advocates:
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, B.R.L.Iyengar, C.B.AGARWAL, GANPAT RAI, K.L.Mehta, S.K.MEHTA, S.S.Khanduja
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, B.R.L.Iyengar, C.B.AGARWAL, GANPAT RAI, K.L.Mehta, S.K.MEHTA, S.S.Khanduja
Revisional power under Section 7-F of the Rent and Eviction Act is quasi-judicial, not administrative. Because it affects statutory rights, the State Government must adhere to the principles of natural justice, specifically providing an opportunity for affected parties to be heard.
Headnote:(A) Rent and Eviction Act - Sections 3 and 7-F - Revisional power of State Government - Principles of natural justice - When a statutory authority is empowered to deal with the rights of citizens, the nature of the power determines whether it must act judicially or quasi-judicially (Para 5) - If the power affects statutory rights, it must be exercised in conformity with the principles of natural justice (Para 5).
(B) Quasi-judicial functions - An order granting permission to sue for eviction removes statutory protection from tenants, thus affecting their rights (Para 10) - A revisional authority required to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality, or propriety of an order is performing a quasi-judicial function (Para 12).
(C) Revisional jurisdiction under Section 7-F - Since the primary and appellate proceedings are quasi-judicial, the revisional power of the State Government under Section 7-F must also be quasi-judicial and requires providing a reasonable opportunity to the parties to be heard to secure the ends of justice (Para 13).
Facts of the case:
Landlords obtained permission to sue tenants for eviction. Following a series of conflicting orders by the Rent Controller, the Appellate Authority, and the Commissioner, the State Government exercised its revisional power under Section 7-F to direct that permission be granted. The affected tenants were not given an opportunity to be heard by the State Government. The High Court held that the sanction was invalid due to the violation of the principles of natural justice.
Findings of Court:
The revisional power exercised by the State Government under Section 7-F is quasi-judicial in nature and not purely administrative.
Issues: Whether the revisional order passed by the State Government under Section 7-F is rendered invalid if the affected parties are not given an opportunity to be heard.
Ratio Decidendi: The power to grant permission to sue for eviction affects the statutory rights of tenants. Because the proceedings before the District Magistrate and the Commissioner are quasi-judicial, the revisional jurisdiction of the State Government under Section 7-F must also be quasi-judicial. To ensure the ends of justice, the State Government is obligated to follow the principles of natural justice and provide a reasonable opportunity for both parties to present their case (Paras 11-13).
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the State Government's revisional order under Section 7-F is administrative or quasi-judicial, and if it requires adhering to the principles of natural justice. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )
3. The powers of the District Magistrate and Commissioner under Section 3 are quasi-judicial as they affect statutory rights and require a judicial approach. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
4. Revisional jurisdiction exercised by the State Government under Section 7-F is quasi-judicial and must be exercised in conformity with the principles of natural justice. (Para 13 )
5. The revisional order passed by the State Government without giving the affected parties an opportunity to be heard is rendered invalid. (Para 13 )
6. How is the nature of a statutory authority's power determined as either administrative or quasi-judicial?
It depends on the nature of the power conferred, the nature of the citizens' rights affected, and whether the statute requires the authority to act judicially or if such an obligation can be inferred from the statutory scheme. (Para 5 )
7. Why is the District Magistrate's permission under Section 3(2) considered quasi-judicial?
Such permission removes statutory protections granted to tenants, thereby affecting their statutory rights, and requires the authority to weigh the pros and cons of the matter based on versions provided by both parties. (Para 10 , 11 )
8. Why is the Commissioner's revisional power under Section 3(3) quasi-judicial?
The statute explicitly requires the Commissioner to hear the application and satisfy himself regarding the correctness, legality, or propriety of the order, as well as the regularity of the proceedings. (Para 12 )
9. Does the State Government's revisional power under Section 7-F require following the principles of natural justice?
Yes. Because the underlying proceedings before the District Magistrate and Commissioner are quasi-judicial, the State Government's revisional power must also be quasi-judicial to secure the ends of justice. (Para 13 )
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I.: The short question of law which arises in the appeal by special leave is whether the revisional order passed by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh under S. 7-F of the Uttar Pradesh (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereafter called the Act), is rendered invalid by reason of the fact that before passing the said order, the State Government did not hear the two respondents. Ram Chand and Kailash Chand, who were affected by it. This question arises in this way. The respondent are the present tenants of the premises bearing municipal No. 863, situated at Jumna Kinara Road, Agra, commonly known as Putaria Mahal. Their predecessors were let into possession as tenants by the appellants, Lala Shri Bhagwan and Shrimati Gapal Devi, on an agreement that they would pay a monthly rent of Rs. 58-4-0 and that tenancy would commence from the Sudi 1 of each Hindi month and end on Badi 15 of the next month . The two appellants applied to the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer (hereafter called the Officer), under S. 3 of the Act for permission to file a suit in ejectment against the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents. The officer granted permission by his order passed on September 1, 1951. The respondents then moved the Additional District Magistrate, who had been authorised by the District Magistrate to hear appeals against the decision of the Officer. The appellate authority declined to confirm the permission granted to the appellants and remanded the case to the Officer for a fresh hearing. On re-hearing the matter, the Officer changed his view and rejected the appellants application for permission on August 9, 1952. The appellants then moved the appellate authority again and prayed that the original order granting permission to them to sue the respondents should be restored. On December 9, 1952, the appellate authority ordered that permission should be granted to the appellants for suing the respondents in ejectment. The respondents then moved the Commissioner of Agra in revision. On February 4, 1953, the revisional authority allowed the revisional application and set aside the appellate order granting permission to the appellants. That took the appellants to the State Government under Section 7-F of the Act. On May 7, 1953, the State Government directed the Commissioner to revise his order on the ground that it thought that the need of the appellants was genuine. Acting in pursuance of this direction, the Commissioner passed an order on July 28, 1953 by which he cancelled his previous order and confirmed the order passed by the appellate authority, granting permission to the appellants to sue the respondents in ejectment. This order was clearly the result of the direction issued by the State Government under S. 7-F of the Act. After this order was passed, the appellants sued the respondents in ejectment in the Court of the Civil Judge, Agra.
2. The claim made by the appellants for ejectment of the respondents was resisted by them on several grounds, and on the contentions raised by the respondents, the trial Court framed six issues. One of the issues was whether the permission granted to the appellant to sue the respondents was valid. It is with this issue that we are concerned in the present appeal. The trial Judge found in favour of the appellants on this issue and recorded his conclusion in their favour even on the other issues which had been framed by him. In the result, the trial Court passed a decree in favour of the appellants on August 31, 1957. The respondents challenged this decree by preferring an appeal in the Court of the First Additional Civil Judge, Agra. In their appeal, they disputed the correctness of the findings recorded by the trial Court on all the issues, including the issue about the validity of the sanction obtained by the appellants before filing the present suit. The appeal Court confirmed all the findings recorded by the trial Judge, with the result
