( 1 ) THIS case was referred to a Bench as a point of law which arose in this case had arisen in another S. A. No. 15 of 1945 and that case had been referred to a Bench for decision. We understand from Mr. Jagdish Swarup that the parties to the S. A. No. 15 of 1945 entered into a compromise, and so the point was not decided in that case. The point, however, came up for decision in Letters Patent App. No. 1 of 1945, which was decided by this Bench on 20-1-1949. During the period that the Defence of India Rules were in force orders were issued by various dist. Magistrates regulating ejectment of tenants, fixation of rents payable by tenants and various other matters. A question arose whether, when a suit was filed in the civil Court for ejectment of a tenant in contravention of an order passed by a Dist. Magistrate under the Defence of India rules, what action the civil Court should take in view of such an order. A learned single Judge of this Court was of the opinion that the order should be ignored. Another learned Judge had held that the suit should be decreed for ejectment, but the decree should not be executed if there was a valid order passed under the Defence of India Rules prohibiting ejectment of tenants. We held in the Letters Patent Appeal, mentioned above, that, if the order passed by the Dist. Mag. was a valid order having under the Defence of India Rules the force of law, then it would note be right for the civil Courts to ignore the order and pass a decree for ejectment. We pointed out in our judgment that, if a decree for ejectment was passed in spite of such an order of the Dist. Mag. under the Defence of India Rules, it was not open to the executing Court to ignore the decree and to refuse to eject the tenant.

( 2 ) IN the S. A. No. 979 of 1945 the facts are as follows. There was a suit filed for ejectment, the deft, being a tenant from month to month, the tenancy beginning from the 9th day of the Hindi month, on payment of a rent of Rs. 25 per month. On 29-3-1943, the plff.-landlord gave a. notice of ejectment on the ground that the tenant had defaulted in payment of rent was in arrears to the extent of Rs. 175. The plff. applied to the Dist. Mag. for permission to file a suit for ejectment. The permission was given by the Dist. Mag. by his order dated 19-10-1948-Ex. 1. and the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was filed on 14-12-1943, for ejectment and for a decree for arrears of rent.

( 3 ) IF rents were in arrears it was not necessary for the plff. to obtain permission of the-District magistrate in view of para. 4 of his order issued in June, 1942. That para is as follows:

"it is further ordered that where no sum on account of rent or allied dues are out-standing against a tenant and where his use of a building or part of a building is in accordance with the original terms of the letting, his eviction without his consent is forbidden, unless previous sanction of the District Magistrate, or the officer appointed by him, is obtained. "

It means that. If any portion of rent is outstanding, or if the building is being used for a purpose other than the purpose for which it was rented, then the landlord has a right to file a suit for ejectment without the permission of the District Magistrate. In all other oases he must obtain the permission of the District Magistrate before he can obtain a decree for ejectment. The plff. on his allegation that rents had not been paid and were outstanding, was not bound to apply for permission, but he did make an application and got the permission on 19-10-1943, as we have already stated above.

( 4 ) THE defence was that rent was not in arrears, as it had been paid in accordance with the mutual arrangement between the parties, that the suit was not maintainable and that the notice was illegal. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court, except that it passed a decree for arrears to the extent of Rs. 150. On appeal the lower appellate Court passed a decree for arrears of ren

Click Here to Read the rest of this document