BIND BASNI PRASAD J.

( 1 ) THIS is a plff. s appeal from the judgment of the learned Civil Judge of Agra dated 31-1-1950. The relevant facts are as follows : The plff. is the deft. s tenant in a house situate in the City of agra. In 1945 and 1947 the defts. unsuccessfully applied to the District Magistrate for permission to evict the plff. from the house. He made a third application in 1948 and on 22-7-1948, the district Magistrate passed the following order:

"this is an application for permission to eject through the Civil Court Ghanshiamdass a tenant of the applicants house. An application by the same parties was made in 1945 and rejected. A second application, was made again in 1947 and was rejected on 18-11-1917. The applicant himself is occupying another mans house for his business and an application has now been made for permission to eject him. Under the circumstances permission is accorded to eject him, ghanshiam Dass through the Civil Court. "

After the grant of this permission, the tenant (the plff. in the present case) brought a suit (No. 122 of 1948), from which this appeal arises, on 31-8-1948, in the Court of the Civil Judge at agra, for a declaration that the aforesaid order of the District Magistrate was null and void and ineffectual so as to enable the landlords to eject him. Near about the same time, the landlords brought a suit for ejectment against the tenant (Suit No. 724 of 1948) in the Court of the Munsif of Agra. This was transferred to the Court of the Civil Judge and both the suits were heard together by him. He dismissed the tenants suit, but decreed the landlords suit. The tenant, therefore, comes in appeal as against the decree passed in suit No. 122 of 1948. An appeal is pending in the Court of the District Judge at Agra from the decree passed in suit No. 724 of 1948. The appellant made an application for the transfer of that appeal to this Court, but it was rejected.

( 2 ) NO evidence was adduced in the Court below. The question is mainly one of interpretation.

( 3 ) DURING the War there was difficulty about accommodation and Orders were made, firstly, under the Defence of India Rules to restrict the rights of landlords under the Transfer of Property Act for the ejectment of the tenants. With the lapse of the Defence of India Rules, those Orders ceased and then Ordinances were made making provisions to the same effect. Ultimately, the ordinances were replaced by the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Bent and Eviction Act, 1947 (Act iii [3] of 1947 ). The second para, of the Preamble of this Act provides as follows :

"and whereas due to the shortage of accommodation in the United Provinces it is expedient to provide for the continuance during a limited period of powers to control the letting and the rent of such accommodation and to prevent the eviction of tenants therefrom. "

( 4 ) SECTION 3 of the Act provides for restriction of eviction. Under the Transfer of Property Act a landlord has, subject to his giving notice, an unfettered right to evict a tenant, not being a tenant for a term. That freedom was restricted by Section 3 of the Act in the following words :

"8. No suit shall, without the permission of the District Magistrate, be filed in any civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from and accommodation, except; on one or more of the following ground : (a) that the tenant has wilfully failed to make payment to the landlord of any arrears of rent within one month of the service upon him of a notice of demand from the landlord; (b) that the tenant has wilfully caused or permitted to fee caused substantial damage to the accommodation; (c) that the tenant has, without the permission of the landlord, made or permitted to be made any such construction as, in the opinion of the Court, has materially altered the accommodation or is likely substantially to diminish its value; (e) that the tenant has on or after the first day of October, 1946, sub-let the whole or any portion of the accommodation without

Click Here to Read the rest of this document