LexBHAGWAN DAS versus PARAS NATH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. . - A B c D E F G BHAGWAN DAS v. PARAS NATH September 27, 1968 (S. M. S!KRI, R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.) U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Evictk>n Ac; 1947, ss. 3 and 7(F)-District Magistrate refusing permis•k>n to landlord to sue tenant /or eviction-Commissioner in revision granting it-Landlord filing dUit and obtaining decree-State Government thereafter revoking permission by order uls 7(F)-Such order whether renders decree unenforceable. The appellant was a tenant of the respendent in respect of a shop in Agra Uttar Pradesh. The respondent applied to the District Magistrate unde~ s. 3(1) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent.and Eviction Act, 1947 for permission to institute a suit against the appellant for evicting him from the shop. The application was rejected by the District Magis- trate, but the Com.missioner, by order under s. 3 (3), granted the pennis- sion. The appellant thereupon moved the State Government under s. 7 (F) of the Act, but it was only after the respondent had filed a suit and obtained a decree that the State Government passed an order revok- ing the permission granted by the Com.missioner. The first Appellate Coun, in view of the order under 7 (F) set asid" the decree of the trial Court. However in second appeal the High Court, relying upon a Full Bench decision of that Court in Bashi Ram v. Mantri Lal (1965) 1 All 545, decided in favour of the respondent. In appeal before this Court by special leave, the question tor consideration was whether a decree for eviction obtained in a suit instituted after obtaining the permission of the Commissioner under s. 3(3) df the Act becomes unenforceable if the State Government acting under s. 7(F) of the Act revokes the permis- sion granted by the Commissioner after the decree is passed. HELD : The order of the District Magistrate is by s. 3 (I) specifically made subject to the order of the Com.missioner in revision under s. 3 (3), but the Commissioner's order according to s. 3(4) is final though subject to the order of the State Government under s. 7(F). There is no provi- sion in the Act providing that a ·suit validly instituted after getting the re- quired permission under s. 3 (1) ceases to be maintainable because of any order made by the State Government under s. 7(F). [305 G-H] Similarly there is no provision in the Act invalidating a decree passed after the Act came into force in a validly institut,ed suit. The finality or the !force of a decree can be taken away by a statute, but the Court will not readily infer that a decree passed by a competent Court has become unenforceable unless it is shown that a provision of law has specifically or by necessary implication made that decree unenforceable. [305 H-306 C-D] On an examination of the relevant provisions of the Act the conclu- sion n;ius\ be tha! when the ~mmissi.on.er sets aside the order passed by the District Magistrate grantmg perm1Ss1on to file a suit for ejecting a t~nant, the order of the ~mmissioner prevails. ff he cancels the permis· SIOO granted by the District Magistrate, there is no effective permission H left and the suit instituted by the plaintiff without awaiting his decision must be treated as one filed without any valid permission by the District Magi•trate. To this extent the decision in Mun.rhi Lal and anr. v. Shambhu Nath Ramkishan, (1958) A.L.J. 584 was correct. [306 D-F] L3 Sup. CJ/69-2 . 298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1969] 2 S.C.R. It follows that the Full Bench decision in Bashi Ram's case to the A extent it held that a suit filed by the landlord after obtaining the pennis- s1on of the District Magistrate cannot become infructuous even if the Commissioner revokes the permission, was incorrect. [306 F] Bashi Ram's case was howevef correctly decided in so far as it held that a suit validly instituted after obtaining a permission as required by s. 3(1) does not cease to be maintainable even if the State Government revokes, after the institution di the suit, the permission granted. If the State G<?vernment revokes the permission granted before the institution of the suit,. then there would be no valid permission to sue. In other words the State Government's power to revoke the permission granted under s. 3 (1) gets exhausted once the suit is validity instituted. [306 GI Bashi Ram v. Mantri Lal, (1965) 1, All. 545 and Munshi Lal and anr. v .. Shambhu Nath Ram Ki~an, (1958) A.L.J
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.