The Controller has no power to recall permission once granted and acted upon by the institution of a suit and obtaining a decree.

( 1 ) THIS is a defendantss appeal in a suit for ejectment from a house and for recovery of Rs. 24-4-6 as arrears of rent for and certain period prior to 4-12-1945. There was also a prayer for mesne profits.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs case was that the defendant had been his tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 6. 4 6 the tenancy beginning from the 5th of each month. Prior to the suit the plaintiff had, on 25-10-1943, obtained the permission of the Controller to sue for the defendants ejectment) under section 14, Meerut House Control Order 1945. He had given a notice to the defendant, terminating the tenancy on 4-12-1945, before he filed the suit.

( 3 ) THE defence taken was that the plaintiff was not entitled to sue without joining the other co sharer, his own brother, that the rent had been paid up to 5-9-1945, that the rent for the subsequent period bad been sent by money order to the plaintiff who had refused it, the defendant being, therefore, entitled to a set off for Rs. 2-14 0 as money order charges and that the permission obtained by the plaintiff having been given in the defendants absence was invalid.

( 4 ) THE trial Court, rejecting this defence, decreed the suit, holding that the permission was valid, that the plaintiff was entitled to Rs. 15 7 0 as arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 6 4 6, that he was also entitled to future mesne profits at Rs. 6 4 6 from 5-12-1945 and that the defendant was not entitled to Rs. 2-14 0 claimed by him as money order charges. While passing this decree the learned Munsif added a rider in his order that the decree for ejectment shall be executed if and when the conditions of Section 14, House Rent Control Order, Meerut, were satisfied. This condition was presumably on the authority of a Single Judge decision of this Court which was subsequently dissented from by a Division Bench, and we need say nothing more on this point. The lower appellate Court affirmed this decree in its entirety.

( 5 ) PENDING the suit the defendant bad by an application attempted to get the permission, already granted by the Controller to the plaintiff cancelled on the ground that it had been granted ex parte, without his (defendants) knowledge. But before an order could be passed by that authority on this application, the learned Munsif had passed his decree on 18-9-1946. Pending the appeal in the lower appellate Court the Controller withdrew the aforesaid permission by an order dated 20-9-1946. The principal question to be considered in this appeal is whether he was competent to pass this later order, withdrawing the earlier one by which he had permitted the plaintiff to sue for the defendants ejectment.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the defendant-appellant has strenuously argued that, on the general principle that a Court having jurisdiction to pass a certain order is also competent to cancel or modify the same, the Controller in the present case, on being satisfied that the permission given by him was wrong, was perfectly competent to with-draw that permission. He also relies on the provisions of Order 20, Rule 3, Civil P. C. , which enjoin that a judgment once given cannot be altered except under Section 152, or on review, that is to say, except where a clerical slip is later on discovered or when the conditions prescribed by Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P. C. , are present. This argument assumes that the proceedings relating to permission before the Controller were essentially of a judicial nature and, therefore, subject to the provisions of the Civil Procedure code.

( 7 ) IN the first place there are no rules prescribed for the application for permission to sue for a tenants ejectment and none relating to the processes to be followed by the Controller in disposing of the same. Nor is there any rule permitting the Controller to review his own permission on any ground, either found to be existing at the time the permission was granted or found to have subsequently come into existence. The position is furthe