DWIVEDI, J. :- Two questions referred to this Bench are :

1. If in a suit instituted by a landlord for ejectment of his tenant with the permission of the District Magistrate obtained under S. 3(1) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, the State Government on being moved by the tenant to pass an appropriate order under S. 7F on the record of the case granting permission passes an order suspending the operation of the permission, what is its effect on further proceedings in the suit pending in court ?

2. If the above-mentioned suit is decreed in the landlord's favour and the tenant files an appeal and during its pendency the State Government passes an order purporting to be one in exercise of the power conferred by S. 7-F directing that the permission

granted by the District Magistrate would have effect after a certain date, which date is subsequent to the date of the decree under appeal what is its effect on the decree ?

2. I do not propose to answer the first question in this case. The answer to the second question is determinative of the case. There has been little argument at the bar about the power of the State Government to pass an interim order suspending the operation of the permission of the District Magistrate. As at present advised, I am inclined to the view that the State Government has no such power.

3. On the second question I am of opinion that the order of the State Government would have no effect on the decree under appeal. My opinion is based on a very simple reasoning which I had indicated at the time of arguments. I still adhere to it.

4. The order of the State Government, it may be observed, affirms the grant of permission by the District Magistrate; only the date of its operation is varied. The lower appellate Court could not take on record the order of the State Government under R. 27 of O. 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order could not be admitted on record under S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as such admission would encourage multiplicity of proceedings and would not be in the interests of justice. The lower appellate Court wrongly admitted the order as

additional evidence. As the order cannot be read in evidence, it can have no effect on the decree under appeal.

5. Plurality opinions traverse a wider ground in answering the second question. If the State Government had cancelled the permission of the District Magistrate, it would have been necessary to cover that ground. But that is not so in this case. The second question has a narrow range. I would reserve opinion on the wider aspect for a suitable case. I am not in favour of expressing opinions which may after all be no more than obiter dicta. I doubt if the obiter dictum of a Full Bench is binding. On a single Judge or Division Court.

6. PATHAK, J. :- This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for possession, arrears or rent and mesne profits.

7. The respondent, who is the landlord of the premises in suit, sued the appellant for ejectment alter obtaining permission on October 17, 1953 from the District Magistrate under S. 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 and after terminating the appellant's tenancy by a notice under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Against the grant of permission the appellant proceeded in revision before the Commissioner but the revision application was dismissed on March 3, 1959. He then filed an application under S. 7-B of the Act before the State Government on April 6, 1959. Pursuant to the permission granted by the District Magistrate, the respondent filed the instant suit when the application under S. 7-F was pending before the State Government. On May 19, 1959 the State Government passed an order purporting to suspend the operation of the permission granted by the State Government during the pendency of the application under S. 7-F, but the trial court rejected the contention of the appellant that it had no jurisdiction to proceed further with