Judgment

MITTER, J.: The question in this appeal by special leave is, whether a suit for eviction of a tenant by a landlord, after obtaining the permission of the Commissioner under sub-s. (3) of S. 3 of the Uttar Pradesh (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 becomes incompetent, on the making of an order by the State Government under S. 7-F cancelling the permission to sue given by the Commissioner.

2. The relevant facts for disposal of this appeal are as follows. The respondent-landlord obtained permission of the District Magistrate to file a suit for eviction against the appellant under S. 3 (1) of the Act on May 29, 1961. The tenant went up to the Commissioner of Agra Division under S. 3 (2) of the Act. On July 26, 1961 the Commissioner dismissed the revision application. The tenant then filed a further revision application to the State Government under S. 7-F of the Act. Before the disposal of the last revision application, the landlord filed a suit for ejectment on January 18, 1962 in the court of the Munsif, Etah in pursuance of the permission given by the Commissioner. On June 16, 1962 the State Government set aside the order of the Commissioner and revoked the permission granted to the landlord. The suit was dismissed by the Munsif of Etah on November 17, 1962. The Civil Judge of Etah allowed the appeal of the landlord on September 28, 1963. The tenant went up in Second Appeal to the High Court. On December 13, 1968 a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the tenant s appeal following a judgment of this Court in Bhagwan Das v. Paras Nath, CA No. 1617 of 1968 D/- 27-9-1968 Learned counsel for the appellant contended that some aspects of the question had not been raised before and/or considered by this Court on the prior occasion which might have induced the Court to come to a different conclusion. Having heard counsel at some length, we are convinced that there is no merit in his submissions. We respectfully agree with the decision in Bhagwan Das s case, CA No. 1617 of 1968 D/- 27-9-1968 (supra) and are satisfied that counsel has not been able to show that any relevant aspect of the question was not considered on the former occasion.

3. There was no unanimity of opinion in the Allahabad High Court as regards the effect of an order passed by the State Government contrary to the Commissioner s order on the basis of which a suit for eviction was filed in the subordinate Courts. So far as the High Court was concerned, the matter was laid at rest by a Full Bench decision in the case of Bashi Ram v. Mantri Lal, ILR (1965) 1 All 545. This Court while not concurring with all that was said in Bashi Ram s case, ILR (19645) 1 All 545 agreed with the full Bench that a suit validly instituted after obtaining permission as required by S. 3 did not cease to be maintainable even if the State Government thereafter revoked the permission granted.

4. Section 3 (1) of the Act restricts the rights of landlords to institute suits for eviction of tenants to cases covered by clauses (a) to (g) of that sub-section except with the permission of the District Magistrate. The words of this sub-section are imperative and show that no such suit can be filed without the permission of the said authority. Under the Transfer of Property Act the only pre-requisite to the institution of a valid suit for eviction of a monthly tenant is the service of a proper notice to quit. The landlord is not obliged to make out any ground for such eviction. Where he seeks to eject a tenant and can make out a case which falls within any of the sub-clauses (a) to (g), he need not approach the District Magistrate for permission to sue. It follows that the District Magistrate must consider the justification for the institution of a suit in all other cases. His order is expressly made subject to any order under sub-s. (3) of the section. In order that power under the latter sub-section can be exercised, it is necessary for the aggrieved party to