1955 Supreme(All) 169

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Raghubar Dayal and Brij Mohan Lal, JJ.
DWARKA PRASAD - Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL TALKIES, COLLECTORGANJ, KANPUR - Respondents
First Appeal 251 Of 1954
Decided On : 09/21/1955

The Additional District Magistrate, who has been empowered by the State government to exercise the powers of the District Magistrate under any law in force, could perform the functions of the District Magistrate under the Control of Rent and Eviction Act when there is nothing in the Act itself which restricted the exercise of those powers by the district Magistrate and the District Magistrate alone or by such other person only whom the district Magistrate authorises to perform those functions.

Headnote:

U.P. (TEMPORARY) CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION ACT, 1947 - SECTION 3 - ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE - AUTHORISATION TO EXERCISE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE'S FUNCTIONS - VALIDITY - NOTICE TO QUIT - VALIDITY - DAMAGES - MEASURE OF.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff, the landlord, filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant, the Central Talkies Ltd., from the premises in Kanpur. Permission was obtained from the Additional District Magistrate of Kanpur for instituting the suit. A notice was given thereafter and, after the expiry of the term mentioned in that notice, the suit was instituted. The defendant contested the suit on various grounds including the grounds that the notice issued was invalid, that the permission given by the District Magistrate was not a valid permission under Section 3 of the aforesaid Control of Rent land Eviction Act and that the plaintiff was nob entitled to any damages in excess of the rent fixed.

Finding of the Court:

1. The order of transfer passed by the District Magistrate did not by its terms authorise the Additional District Magistrate (Rural) to perform any of the District Magistrates functions under the Act. 2. The Additional District Magistrate was empowered by the State Government under Section 10 (2), Criminal P.C., to exercise all the powers of a District Magistrate under any law for the time being in force. 3. The provisions of the Control of Rent and Eviction act do not expressly or even by necessary implication, provide that an Additional District magistrate duly empowered by the State Government under Section 10 (2), Criminal P.C. , to exercise all the powers of a District Magistrate under any law would not be competent to perform the functions of the District Magistrate under this Act. 4. The notice of ejectment was a valid notice. 5. The damages to which the plaintiff appellant is entitled from the defendant amount to Rs. 593/12/- per month.

Issues: 1. Whether the permission granted by the Additional District Magistrate was a valid permission? 2. Whether the notice to quit was valid? 3. What is the measure of damages to which the plaintiff is entitled?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of the expression "district Magistrate" in Section 2, Clause (d) of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act contemplates a District Magistrates authorising air officer to perform any of! the district Magistrates functions under the Act. It follows therefore, that the order of authorisation should be of a general kind either with respect to all the functions of the District Magistrate under the Act or with some of them. The order should not be just restricted to one particular case. 2. Section 10 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the State Government to appoint an Additional District Magistrate and such Additional District Magistrate shall have all or any of the powers of a District Magistrate under this Code, or under any other law for the time being in force, as the state Government may direct. 3. The notification issued by the State Government under Section 10 (2), Criminal P.C., conferred a general power on the Government to empower an Additional District Magistrate to perform the functions of the District Magistrate under any law in force. 4. The definition of the expression "district Magistrate" is not, exclusive and is not to the effect that the District Magistrate means the District Magistrate or a person authorised by the District magistrate to perform the functions of the District Magistrate under the Act. 5. The amount which the landlord can be said to get from the premises in suit would be equal to the maximum permissible rent under the Control of Bent and Eviction Act.

Final Decision: Appeal allowed. Decree of the court below set aside. Plaintiffs suit for ejectment against the defendant decreed. Plaintiffs suit for damages decreed at the rate of Rs. 593/12/- per month from 1-11-1948 to 24-2-1949, with costs throughout and future interest at 6 per cent, per annum. Claim for damage pendente lite and future till the date of possession decreed at Rs. 593/12/- per month with future interest from the date of accrual of damages to the date of payment at 6 per cent, per annum. Costs to the date of the paper book incurred by the appellant shall be included in the. costs of the appeal.