Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. S. Dhavan, J.
REHTU RAM - Appellant
Versus
KARAM SINGH - Respondents
Second Appeal 2145 Of 1960
Decided On : 11/22/1962
U. P. CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION ACT, 1947 - SECTION 3 - REVISION OF ORDER GRANTING PERMISSION TO FILE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT - COMMISSIONER'S POWER - SCOPE - CANCELLATION OF PERMISSION AFTER SUIT FILED - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
Landlord obtained permission under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 to file a suit for ejectment of tenant due to personal needs. Tenant challenged the permission in High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, causing delay. Landlord filed another application under Section 3 for ejectment of a different tenant, Karam Singh, on the same ground. Permission was granted, and a suit for ejectment was filed. During the pendency of the suit, another tenant vacated a portion of the house, and Karam Singh applied for cancellation of the permission granted under Section 3, claiming that the landlord's personal needs were satisfied. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application, but the Commissioner set aside the order and cancelled the permission. Karam Singh amended his written statement, arguing that the suit was no longer maintainable due to the revocation of permission. The trial court rejected this plea and decreed the suit, but the lower appellate court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The Commissioner's revisional powers are limited to the cases specified in the Act and do not include a general power of revision like that of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Commissioner has no power to entertain a revision against the refusal of the District Magistrate to review an earlier order granting permission under Section 3. After the statutory period for filing a revision against the order granting permission has expired and an application for review has been rejected, the Commissioner cannot extend the limitation period by entertaining a revision against the second order. The District Magistrate's power to review an order granting permission must ordinarily be exercised before the landlord files a suit. Cancellation of permission after a suit has been filed can only be effective retrospectively if the landlord files a premature suit before the expiry of the statutory period for revision or during the pendency of a revision.
Issues: 1. Whether the Commissioner has the power to cancel permission granted under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 after a suit for ejectment has been filed. 2. Whether the cancellation of permission by the Commissioner after the suit has been filed renders the suit invalid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Commissioner's revisional powers are limited to the cases specified in the Act and do not include a general power of revision like that of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The Commissioner has no power to entertain a revision against the refusal of the District Magistrate to review an earlier order granting permission under Section 3. 3. After the statutory period for filing a revision against the order granting permission has expired and an application for review has been rejected, the Commissioner cannot extend the limitation period by entertaining a revision against the second order. 4. The District Magistrate's power to review an order granting permission must ordinarily be exercised before the landlord files a suit. 5. Cancellation of permission after a suit has been filed can only be effective retrospectively if the landlord files a premature suit before the expiry of the statutory period for revision or during the pendency of a revision.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the decree of the lower appellate court was set aside, and the plaintiff's suit for ejectment was decreed.
( 1 ) THIS is a landlords second appeal from the decision of the Additional Civil Judge muzaffarnagar dismissing his suit for ejectment, of his tenant. The plaintiff Rehatu Ram was the landlord of a house which was occupied by several tenants including the defendant Karam Singh. The landlord lived in a part of this house. He needed additional accommodation for his personal use and obtained the permission of the District Magistrate under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of rent and Eviction Act to file a suit for the ejectment of two tenants other than Karam Singh but they challenged the decision by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in this court and consequently the permission remained ineffective for several years. Despairing of getting an early decision, ne filed another application under Section 3 of the Act for the ejectment of the defendant Karam Singh on the same ground namely, his personal needs. Permission was granted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 23rd May 1958. In his order that officer observed that the need of the landlord would have been satisfied if he had been able to reap the benefit of the earlier permission to evict the other two tenants, but as the validity of the permission had been challenged in the High Court there was likely to be delay in the disposal of the cases, and meanwhile the landlords need was pressing and it was just and desirable that he should be given permission to obtain additional accommodation in his own house. No revision was filed by the tenant against this order. On 18th July 1958 the landlord served notice on Karam singh under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy and ashing him to vacate the house. As the latter refused to comply with this request, the landlord filed the present suit for ejectment on 4th September 1958. On 20th January 1959 Karam Singh filed a written statement resisting the suit. Soon after this another tenant Kunj Behari Lal vacated a portion of the house. Thereupon, Karam Singh filed an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for the cancellation of the permission previously granted under Section 3 on the ground that the landlords personal needs had been satisfied with the departure of Kunj Behari Lal and the reason for the granting of permission no longer existed. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer inspected the house and observed that the accommodation at the disposal of the landlord was sufficient for his family. But he held that as the suit for ejectment had already been filed, the application for the cancellation of the permission was not maintainable. Karam Singh filed a revision against this order before the Commissioner which was opposed by the landlord on the ground that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain a revision from an order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer refusing to review his previous order or to cancel an order granting permission after the landlord had filed his suit for ejectment. Overruling both these objections, the Commissioner set aside the order of the Rent Control and Eviction officer dated 23rd May 1958 refusing a review and cancelled the permission. Thereupon the defendant Karam Singh amended his written statement and added a plea that the suit for ejectment was no longer maintainable as the permission under Section 3 had been revoked. The trial Court rejected this plea and held that the bar of Section 3 having been lifted, no subsequent revocation of the permission could reimpose the bar, and decreed the suit. On appeal learned additional Civil Judge held that the subsequent cancellation of the permission by the commissioner was valid and consequently the suit must be deemed to have been filed without permission. He allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the landlord who has now come to this Court in second appeal.
( 2 ) IN my opinion the view of the lower appellate Court is quite incorrect. The Commissioner
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
