BIND BASNI PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiffs-respondents are the owners of premises No. 16/35 along with the outhouses and the sheds situated at the Mall Road, Kanpur. The defendant-appellant is the tenant thereof on a monthly rent of Rs. 175. It is the common ground of the parties that these premises were let out by a written deed of lease, dated 21-11-1922. That lease was for one year with an option of renewal for another two years. On 4-12-1945, the plaintiffs instituted a suit for the ejectment of the defendant from the premises and for the recovery of Rs. 350 as arrears of rent. The defence was that the lease was for manufacturing purposes, the notice to quit was invalid and the amount claimed as arrears of rent was incorrect.

( 2 ) THE trial Court repelled all the contentions of the defendant and decreed the claim in its entirety. The defendant went up in appeal. Learned District Judge affirmed the decision of the trial Court. The defendant now comes up in second appeal to this Court.

( 3 ) THE first contention raised by Shri Gopi Nath Kanzru on behalf of the appellant is that, having regard to the provisions of Section 15, U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, no decree for ejectment can be passed except on one or more of the grounds mentioned in section 3 of the Act. In this section the word "suits" has been used. The question, therefore, first arises whether it applies also to appeals. On this point there are two Bench decisions of this court, viz. , Niranjan Lal v. Mt. Ram Kali Devi, A. I. R. (37) 1950 ALL. 396 and Lala Raj Narain v. Sita Ram Sri Kishan Das, S. A. No. 979 of 1945, D/- 3-11-1949. In both these cases it has been held that the word "suit" in Section 15 includes an appeal. Section 15, therefore, is applicable to the present appeal.

( 4 ) THE question then arises whether this Court in the present appeal is confined only to one or more of the grounds mentioned in Section 3 of the Act. On this point the Division Bench in S. A. No. 979 of 1945, D/- 3-11-1949, after referring to Section 10, U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction (Amendment) Act (XLIV [44] of 1948) observed as follows :

"this amendment Act attempts to make it clear that if any of the grounds (a) to (f) exists then a suit for ejectment of a tenant can be filed, and it Js not necessary to go to the District Magistrate for his permission. There being no other provision restricting the right to file suits for ejectment in the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (III [3] of 1947) a suit for ejectment need not be confined to grounds (a) to (f) provided the permission of the District Magistrate has been obtained. The result of interpreting Section 15 differently is that we get this anomaly that, while in all suits pending on the date when the Act came into force, the orders of ejectment could be passed only on the restricted grounds mentioned in Clauses (a) to (f) of Section 3, in suits filed after the Act came into force the tenant could be ejected on any ground whatsoever, provided the permission of the District Magistrate had been obtained. Reading the two sections together we are inclined to the view that Section 15 was intended to mean that the provisions of section 3 would be applicable to all pending suits and that a tenant could be ejected on grounds (a) to (f) without the permission of the District Magistrate, but that in a case where the permission of the District Magistrate was obtained he could be ejected on any ground. "

In that particular case the permission of the District Magistrate bad been obtained on 19-10-1943. In the case before us the permission was obtained on 31-10-1945. The present case is, therefore, almost identical with the one which was before the Division Bench in S. A. No. 979 of 1945. Having regard to the principles enunciated by the Division Bench the plea that the defendant-appellant can be ejected only on one or more of the grounds mentioned in Clauses (a)to (f) of Section 3 f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document