MOHAMMAD ISMAIL versus NANNEY LAL

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 894 · Decided: 07-03-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MOHAMMAD ISMAIL 
v. 
NANNEY LAL 
March 1, 1969 
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., 
J. C. SHAH, 
V. RAMASWAMI, 
G. K. MITTER AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J 
U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act (U.P. 7 of 1941) 
s. 7-F-Suit for eviction filed after obtaining permission by ComniissioM; 
-Permission revoked by State Government-Whether suit incompetent. 
A 
B 
The U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act, 1947, res-
C 
tricts the rights of landlords to institute suits for eviction of their tenants 
to cases covered by s. 3(l)(a) to (g) except with the permission of the 
J?istri.ct Magistrate. The District Magistrate's order granting the permis-
s10n is expressly made subject to any order by the Commissioner under 
s. 3 (2) provided the aggreived party applies within 30 days to the Com-
missioner to revise the order. The Commissioner must ordinarily dispose 
of the application within six weeks. Section 7-F of the Act confers revi-
sionary powers on the State Government in any case granting or refusing 
D 
to grant permission, and under s. 3 ( 4) the Order of the Commissioner 
under s. 3(3) is to be final subject to the order under s. 7-F. The res-
pondent-landlord obtained permission of the District Magistrate to file a 
suit fdr eviction of the appellant-tenant under s.. 3 ( 1) of the Act. , The 
tenant applied to the Commissioner under s. 3(2) and the Commis~ioner 
dismissed the application. The tenant then filed a further revision appli-
cation fo the State Government under s. 7-F. Before the disposal of the 
E 
last revision application, the landlord filed a suit for ejectment in pursu-
ance of the permission given by the Commissioner. Thereafter the State 
Government set aside the order of the Commissioner and revoked the 
permission granted to the landlord. 
On the question whether the suit 
filed, after obtaining the permission of the Commissioner became incompe-
tent on the making of an order by the State Government under- s. 7-F 
cancelling the permission to sue given by the Commissioner, this Court, 
HELD : The suit validly instituted after obtaining permission as re-
.quired by s. 3 did not cease to be maintainable even if the State Govern-
ment thereafter revoked the permission granted. 
11 
Under sub-s. (1) of s. 3 the maintainability of a suit on grounds other 
than those mentioned in els. (a) to (g) is made expressly subject to an 
order under sub-s. (3). The Legislature did not provide that the right 
to file a suit would be subject to or dependent upon an order under s. 7-F 
G 
in the same way as an order under s. 3(3). [898 A] 
When n landlord files a suit for eviction only with the permission of 
the District Magistrate, he is conscious of the fact that such permission 
may be revoked by the Commissioner at the instance of the tenant within 
tCn weeks of its institution. But so far as the revisional powers of the 
State Government are concerned. there is n6 time limit fixed either for 
application by an aggrieved party o'r for the disposal thereof .. It may b_e 
H 
made at anv time and the State Government 1s further authorised by this 
section (s. 7-F) to act suo 111otu. In such a state of affairs, it cannot be 
'held that the landlord must wait indefinitely and find out whether the 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
' 
H 
MOHD. ISMAIL v. NANNEY LAL (Mitter, J.) 
8 95 
permission granted to him will be upheld by the State Government should 
the tenant make an application for revision of the ordelr of the Com-
missioner. [898 CJ 
Apart from the above c;pnsideration, the words in s. 7-F indicate that 
the State Government can only exercise its. jurisdiction to revise the order 
of the Commissioner before the actual jnstitution of the suit. 
The lan-
guage of s. 7-F does not seem to be aimed at invalidating a suit already 
instituted and can only operate at a stage before the landlord launches 
his proceedings. There is nothing in sub-s. ( 4) of s. 3 read with s. 7-F 
to show that the landlord should wait till the powers of the revising 
authorities have been exhausted. If the Legislature had so intended, it 
could have used suitable words in sub-s. (!) of s. 3 to indicate that the 
grant of permission by the District Magistrate would also be subject to 
an crder under s. 7-F. [898 F] 
The Legislature had provided for a decree for eviction of a tenant 
passed before the commencement of the Act liable to be rendered inexe-
cutable unless it was based on any of the grounds mentioned in sub-s. ( 3). 
lbe Legislature migh

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.