JUDGMENT

BEG, J.: —The appellant, here by special leave, is a tenant of premises in Dehradun in respect of which the landlord respondent No. 4 had sought permission, under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act III of 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), to sue for his eviction. The permission was granted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Dehradun, as long ago as 11 August, 1969, and, thereafter, the suit for ejectment of the appellant was filed on 19th November, 1969.

2. Section 3, sub-sec. (1) of the Act had merely imposed a bar on suits in Civil Court filed without the permission of the District Magistrate except on certain grounds which are given there. The plaintiff respondent, one Mrs. Sheila Kalha, wife of a retired army officer, was given permission to file her suit on the ground that she required the accommodation for personal residence. She is said to have been living at considerable expense to her at New Delhi due to inability to live in her own house at Dehradun as it has been occupied by the appellant.

3. The tenant had applied on 19th August, 1969, for a certified copy of the order of the Rent Control Officer granting the landlord permission to sue and got its copy on 25th August, 1969. Thereafter, the tenant filed a revision application under Section 3 (2) of the Act, purporting to be made to the Commissioner, Meerut Division, but actually filed on 16th September, 1969, before an Additional District Magistrate of Dehradun who had forwarded it on to the Commissioner. The Revision Application was received in the Commissioners office on 24th September, 1969. It rejected by the Commissioner on the ground that it was filed beyond the time prescribed by Section 3 (2) of the Act which reads as follows:

"(2) where any application has been made to the District Magistrate for permission to sue a tenant for eviction from any accommodation and the District Magistrate grants or refuses to grant the permission, the party aggrieved by his order may within 30 days from the date on which the order is communicated to him apply to the Commissioner to revise the order."

4. The State Government also rejected the revision application of the appellant tenant, filed under Section 7F of the Act, against the Commissioners order.

5. The appellant tenant then approached the Allahabad High Court with a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition was rejected by a learned Judge on 31st October. 1972, on two grounds: firstly, that there was no provision in the Act or in the rules framed thereunder for enabling the Additional District Magistrate to receive the tenants application under Section 3 (2) of the Act; and secondly, that the time spent on obtaining the certified copy of the order of the District Magistrate could not be excluded under Section 12 (2) of the Limitation Act. of 1963. For the second proposition reliance was placed upon: Shyam Sunder Bajpai v. Commr. Allahabad Division, Allahabad. 1965 All LJ 211 and Ram Lakhan v. Commr., Varanasi Division, Varanasi, 1970 All LJ 909.

6. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court had rejected the tenants Special Appeal summarily. This Court, however, granted special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution on 28th July, 1975. We need not express any opinion on the correctness of the second proposition here if we agree with the High Courts view on the first point because, in that case, the tenants application would be time barred even if the time spent in obtaining the copy was excluded.

7. The only contention, put forward by Mr. B. Sen on behalf of the tenant-appellant, on the first point, is that there is a practice in Dehradun, acting on some instruction of the Commissioner, Meerut Division, to receive revision applications to the Commissioner through an Additional District Magistrate of Dehradun, who has, therefore, the Commissioners authority to receive these applications. It was urged that the filing of the Revision Appl