LexPRABHAWATI versus DR. PRITAM KAUR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G II PRABHAWATI v. DR. PRITAM KAUR March 22, 1972 991 [K. S, HEGl>E, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND G. K. MITTBR,JJ.] . . U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1941-S. 3- /ts scope-.Qrder of the HIRh •Court dil't!ctinR the State Govt. to rehear a rtvislon pttltlon-R<spondent filed eviction suit before rehearing-- Whether the tuit for eviction maintainable, The. appellant,' a tenant, was sought to be evicted by Respondent. She applied to the Distri<:t Magistrate, who was also the Rent Controller under s .. 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act 1947, for permission to sue the appellant for her eviction and the per- mission was granted. As against that order, the appellant went up iii revision to the State Government. During the pendency of that pro- ceeding, the State Government passed an order staying the operation of the permission granted by the Commissioner pending consideration of the case by the State Government. La•er, the State Government allowed the revision petition and set aside the premission granted. Respondent challenged the legality of the order made by the .. State Govt. before I/le High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. · The High Court set aside the order of the Government on the ground that the State Govt. in deciding the revision petition had allowed itself t·o be inftuenced by irrelevant considerations. It directed the State Govt. t·o rehear the appellant's revision application according to law. This order was passed on February 28, 1967. On the very next day, the respondent filed a suit for eviction of the appellant. When the revision petition came up for hearing before the State Govt., the Respondent submitted that in view of the institution of the suit, the State Govt. was not competent to hear the revision petition and accordingly, the State Govt, dismissed the petition on the sole ground that the proceeding be'fore it became infl'l;'ctunus in view of the institution of the civil suit. The appellant challenged thai order of the State Government by means of a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court held that the stay grnnted _by the State Govt. had lapsed when the revision petition was dispOSCd of. Therefore, on the institution of the civil suit for. e\iction, her revision petition before the State Govt. became infructuous. As against that order, this appeal. has been brought by special leave. Allow- ing the appeal, and directing 'the State Govt. to restore and decide the revision petition according to law. HELD : The State Government and the High Court were not justified in dismissing the revision petition as being infructuous because of the institution of the suit. One of the implications of the order di the High Court directing the State Government to rehear the revision petition of the appellant was that the respondent was precluded from filing the intended suit for eviction till .the State Government heard the r~vision petition. Otherwise, the direction given by the High Court would remain unobeyed. The respondent cannot be permitted 'o obotruct the imple- llMll!tation of that direction and that too, a direction given at her instance. ~11)1. Ir ~ n()! open to the ~t te ~ ~ .Wt befo~ 992 SUPREME C<:JUR T REPORTS [1972] 3 S.C.R. the revision petition was disposed of by the State Government. The A suit filed by the respondent was a premature one. Such a suit did not bar the State Government from disposing of the revision pet:tion in pur~ •uance of the order made by the H;gh Court. [999 BJ Shri Bhagwan v. Ramachand, [1965] 3 S.C.R. 218, Bhagwan Das v. Paras Nath, , 1969] 2 S.C.R. 297 a;:d Mohammad Ismail v. Naney Lal, rt 9691 3 .S. C.R. 894, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1813 of 1971. ' Appeal by special leave from the jud 0 ment and decree dated February 5, 1971 of the Allahabad High Court. in Special Appeal No. 1116 of 1969. M. V. Ta.·k1mde and S.S. Shukla, for the appellant. M. C. Chag/a and Rameshwar Nath, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. though this appeal relates to a comparatively small maiter, it has exposed several disturbing features. Hence it is necessary to set out the facts of the case in some detail. The appellant is a tenant of the respondent. She is occupying one of the premi 0.es belonging to the respondent. The respondent is seeking to evict her from the sai
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.