PURSHOTTAM DAS versus SMT. RAJ MANI DEVI

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 576 · Decided: 30-10-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

576 
PURSHOTTAM DAS 
v. 
SMT. RAJ MANI DEVI 
(Jctober 30, 1968 
A. 
[S~ M. S!KR! AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.] 
B 
"' 
, . 
U.P. (Temp.) Control of Rrnt and Eviction Act 1947, 
;s. 3 
""f• 
and 7F-Rent Control Officer permitted institution of suit for ejectment-
Suit filed-Con1niissioner revokes pennission-State Governnient 
allo1vs 
filing of suit-Defence for ejectment passed--Efject. 
The respondent-landlord obtained permission to institute a suit from 
the Rent Control & Eviction Officer under s. 3 ( 1) of the U.P. (Temp.) 
Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, for ejecting from his house the 
appellant-tenant. 
The respondent 
filed a suit for eviction against 
the 
appellant. 
Later the Commissioner acting under s. 3(3) revoked the per-
mission. 
But the State Government on March 30, 
1963 acting under 
s. 7F s~t aside the Commissioner's order and gave leave to the respondent 
.to file the suit after 4 months of the date of the order i.e., July 30, 1963. 
On July 11, 1963 the trial court decreed the suit. The appellant filed an 
appeal. The appellate court set aside the trial courf's decree and remanded 
the suit for fresh trial. On remand, the trial court decreed the suit on 
March 2, 1964 holding that the permission granted by the State Govern-
ment became effective from July 30, 1963 and as the suit wa. still pend-
ing a decree could be passed in the suit. This decision was affirmed by the 
first appellate court, and also by the High Court. Dismissing the appeal 
this Court, 
c 
D 
HELD : If the State Government acting under s. 7F sets aside 
the 
E 
order of tP.e Commissioner revoking the 
permission. 
the order 
under 
s. 3 ( 1) granting permission 
is revived. 
The result is that there is an 
effective permission to institute the suit under s. 3 ( l) and the suit 
is 
validity instituted. [578 DJ 
The direction of the State Government to file the suit after four 
month1 of che order meant that the permission under s. 3 (1) would be-
come effective on the expiry of 4 months i.e. from July 30, 1963. 
The 
F 
Jandlord had thus an effective permission to institute 
the 
suit 
under 
s. 3 (I) from July 30, 1963. The decree in the suit was passed on March 
2, 1964. On that date the landlord had a valid permission to institute 
the suit. The suit was therefore maintainable. [578 HJ 
Bhagwan Das v. Paras Nath, [1969] 2 S.C.R. ·297, distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1449 of 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
April 28, 1966 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal 
No. 289 of 1965. 
G ~ 
• 
M . .K. Ramamurthi, Shyamala Pappu and Vineet .Kumar, for 
the appdlalllt. 
H . ,;... 
B. C. Misra, 0. Prakash, R. K. Mathur and M. V. Goswami, 
for the respondent. 
• 
} 
' • 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
PURSHOTTAM v. RAJ MANI (Bachawat, J.) 
577 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bachawat, J. The appellant is the tenant and the respondent 
is the landlord of House No. SB, Old 122 Maya Mirganj, Allaha-
bad. The appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment by the land-
lord against the tenant from the house. 
On October 11, 1961, 
the landlord obtained permission to institute the suit from the 
Rent Control and Eviction Officer under s. 3(1) of the U.P. 
(Temp.) Control of Rent aind Eviction Act, 1947. On October 
14, 1961 the landlord instituted the present suit for eviction 
against the tenant. On March 27, 1962 the Commissioner 
Allahabad Division acting under s. 3 (3) revoked the permission 
to institute the suit. 
On March 30, 1963 the State Government 
acting under s. 7F set aside the Commissioner's order and gave 
leave to the landlord to file the suit with effect from July 30, 
1963. On July 11, 1963 the Trial Court decreed the suit. The 
tenant filed an appeal against the decree. On November 4, 1963 
the appellate court set aside the decree and remanded the suit for 
fresh trial. After the suit went back on remand the Trial Court 
decreed the suit on March 2, 1964. The Trial Court held that 
the permission granted by the State Government became effec-
tive from July 30, 1963 and as the suit was still pending a decree 
could be passed in the suit. 
An appeal against the decree was 
dismissed on November 28, 1964. A second appeal was dis-
missed by the High Court on April 28, 1966. The present appeal 
has been filed by the tenant after obtaining special leave. The 
sole question in the appeal is whether in the circumstances there 
was a valid permission to i

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