RAMJI DAS & ORS. versus TRILOK CHAND ETC.

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 815 · Decided: 25-02-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
8 
c 
0 
E 
F 
G 
H 
815 
RAMJI DAS & ORS. 
v. 
TRILOK CHAND ETC. 
February 25, 1970 
[J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J 
U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction A.cl (U.P. of 1947), 
s. 3-Permission granted by the Rent Control 
and· Eviction Ofjicer-
Validity if can be challenged in suit for eviction. 
The appellant-landlord applied to the Rent Control & Eviction Officer 
under s. 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act, 1947 
for permission to file a suit for a decree in ejectment against the ~respon­
dent-tenant. The officer granted the permission, holding that the need of 
the appellant to occupy the premises was bona fide and genuine. This 
order was confirmed in a ·revision application by the Additional Commis-
sioner. The appellant then terminated the tenancy by notice and filed 
suits in the Civil Court for ejectment and arrears of rent The trial court 
decreed the suits, which were confirmed by the appellate court. But in 
second appeal, the High Court observed that it was incumbent on the 
Rent Control and Eviction Officer to consider the needs of the tenant, 
and since he refused to consider the tenant'!I needs the permission 
was 
invalid, and the appellant's suits were liable to be diomissed. In appeal, 
this Court, 
HELD : The decision of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was 
not in the suits filed by the appellant open to objection. 
The proceeding under s. 3(2) before the District Magistrate or before 
the Rent Control & Eviction Officer, who exercioes his powers as delegated 
under the Act, and before the Commissioner under s. 3(3) of the U.P. 
(Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act are 
quasi-judicial in 
character. By sub-section ( 4) of s. 3 of the Act the decision of the Com-
missioner under suf>.s. (3) of s. 3, subject to any order passed by the State 
Government under s. 7-F of the Act, is declared final. 
The respondent 
did not prefer any petition before the State Government under s. 7-F of 
the Act and on that account the order passed by the Additional Commis-
sioner, exercising powers of the 
Commissioner under s. 3 ( 3), became 
final. 
Finality df the order declared by s. 3 ( 4) and s. 16 of the Act does 
not exclude the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution to issue 
an appropriate writ quashing the order. But subject to interference by the 
High Court, the decision must be deemed final and is not liable to be 
cballen.ged in any collateral proceeding. [817 B-D] 
Even granting that the Additional Commissioner reached a wrong con-
clusion, the decision- was not without jurisdiction and the only avenue for 
correction is the one provided by the Act, i.e. by approaching the State 
Goverment under s. 7-F. [817 HJ 
Asa Singh v. B. D. Sanwa/ & Ors. AJ.R. 1969 All. 474, held inappli-
cable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE f!JRI$1)!CT!ON : Civil Appeals Nos. 1463 
and 1464 of 1969 
816 
SUP&EME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1970] 3 S.C.R. 
Appeals by special leave from .the judgment and order dated 
January 31, 1969 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeals 
Nos. 1197 and 1198 of 1967. 
M. C. Setalvad, P. Parameswara Rao, K. C. Dua and S. M. 
Grover, for the appellants (in 'eoth the appeals). 
J. P. Goyal and M. V. Goswami, for the respondents (in both 
the appeals). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shah, J. 
A common question arises in these two appeals, and 
we will therefore dispose it of by this common judgment. 
The appellant is the owner of a house at Shamli in District 
Muzaffarnagar in U.P., and the respondent is the tenant of that 
house. 
The appellant applied to the Re.nt Control and Eviction 
Officer under s. 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and 
Eviction Act, 1947, for permission to file a suit for a decree in eject-
ment against the respondent. By order dated June 4, 1965, that 
Olllcer granted the permission, holding that the need of the appel-
lant "to occupy the premises was bona fide and genuine". This 
order was confirmed in a revision application by the Additional 
Commissioner. The appellant then terminated the tenancy of the 
respondent in respect of the premises by a notice as required by 
B 
c 
D 
law and filed two suits in the Court of the Munsif, Kairana, for 
ejectment and for payment of arrears of rent. The Trial Court a 
decreed the suits holding that the permission granted by the Rent 
Control and Eviction Officer was with "jurisdiction and was not 
mala fide". 
The decrees were confirmed in appeal to the Dis

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