An Additional District Magistrate, empowered under Section 10(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, has the power to grant permission for a suit for eviction under Section 3 of the United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1946.

Judgment

HIDAYATHULLAH, J. : This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Allahabad with a certificate granted by the High Court under Art. 133(1) (b) of the Constitution. The High Court, reversing the decision of the trail Court, decreed the present suit for ejectment against the appellants, and also awarded damages to the plaintiff-respondent at the rate of Rs. 593-12-0 per month. The suit was filed by the respondent, Babu Dwarka Prasad, against the appellants, Central Talkies Ltd., Kanpur and Lala Ram Narain Garg, the Managing Director of the Company.

2. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows; Dwarka Prasad was the sole owner of a plot of land No. 73/22 (old No. 73/28) situated in Collectorgunj, Kanpur. In 1933, an agreement of lease was executed by five persons in favour of Lala Rameshwardas, the predecessor-in-title of Babu Dwarka Prasad, by which the five lessees took over on lease a hall and other constructions, which lessor agreed to build at a cost of Rs. 16,000 within four months. It was agreed that, if the lessor was required to spend an amount in excess of Rs. 16,000, he would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 annas per cent per month from the second party till the end of tenancy. The tenancy was from month to month and the period of the tenancy was fixed at 5 years in the first instance. This tenancy continued with variations in the amount of rent till the year 1946, and on January 15, 1946 Dwarka Prasad sent a letter to the defendants that the period of lease was to expire on February 28, 1946, and that the Central Talkies, Ltd. should vacate the premises by that date. The defendants did not vacate the premises, and a suit for ejectment was filed against the Central Talkies, Ltd.

3. During the pendency of that suit, the United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1946, (referred to in the judgment, as the Eviction Act) came into force. Under S. 3 of the Eviction Act, permission of the District Magistrate was required to file in any Civil Court a suit for the eviction of a tenant, except on grounds which were enumerated in the Section. Admittedly, the suit was filed on a ground which was not enumerated in the Section, and Dwarka Prasad withdrew it. He then applied to the District Magistrate for permission to eject the Central Talkies Ltd., from the premises, and permission was granted by the Additional District Magistrate (Rural Area) on July 7, 1948. It is not necessary to state the pleas which were taken by the defendants in the newly filed suit, because the only point argued before us was that the suit was incompetent, because permission of the District Magistrate as required by S. 3 had not been obtained.

4. The Divisional Bench of the High Court held that the suit was competent. The two learned Judges, who heard the appeal, reached the same conclusion, though on slightly different grounds. Raghubar Dayal, J., held that the Additional District Magistrate, who granted permission, was empowered by the Provincial Government under S. 10(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to exercise all the powers of a District Magistrate under the Code and all the laws for the time being in force and the requirements of S. 3 were complied with. Brij, Mohan Lal, J., came to the conclusion that the District Magistrate by transferring the case to the Additional District Magistrate (Rural Area) had authorised him to perform his functions under the Act in this behalf and that the Additional District Magistrate, being thus included in the definition of "District Magistrate" under S. 2(d), was competent to grant the permission. Concurring, therefore, that the suit was instituted with the permission of the District Magistrate as required by the Eviction Act, the Divisional Bench held that the suit was competent.

5. It may be pointed out that, at first, the application for permission was made over by the District Magistrate to Mr. Hadi Hasan, who was also an Additional District Magistr