SETH BALGOPAL DAS versus THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 1092 · Decided: 08-04-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
. F 
G 
H 
1092 
SETH BALGOPAL DAS 
v. 
THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
April 8, 1976 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JAsWANT SINGH, JJ.} 
U.P. (Ten1porary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, S.3(2), rcquire-
n1ent of-Receipt of revision application by Additional District 
Mngisrrate, 
whether validated by practice in absence of rules or specific authorisation bv 
Con~missioner. 
· 
The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Dehradun. granted permission to 
the respondent landlady under s. 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and 
Eviction Act, to file a suit for eviction of the appellant tenant, on the ground 
that the accommodation was required for her personal residence. 
The tenant 
filed a revision application under s. 3 (2) of the Act, purporting to be made to the 
Commissioner, 
Meerut Division, but actually filed before the Additional Dis-
tr~ct ~fagistrate who rejected it as time barred. The appellant tenant's further 
..l 
revision application, made under s. 7F of the Act, v,.ras rejected by the State 
\ 
Government, and then his petition under Article 226 was rejected by a Single 
Judge of the Allahabad High Court cin two grounds: 
Firstly that neither the' 
Act, nor the rules made thereunder had any provision enabling the Additional 
District Magistrate to receive the tenant's application under s. 3 (2); and secondly, 
that the time spent in obtaining the certified copy of the Distri..:t ~tagistrate's 
order could not be excluded under s. 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. The 
appellant's special appeal was summarily rejected by a Division Bench of the 
High Court. 
In appeal by special leave, the appellant contended before the Court that, 
as a pra.ctice had grown up in Dehradun, that the Additional District A-Iagistrate 
receives the revision applications made to the Commissioner, the requirements 
of s. 3(2) should l]e deemed to have been sufficiently complied with. 
l)ismissing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD : There is not even a rule on this subject made by the State Govern-
ment. 
A wrong practice cannot possibly modify what naturally follo-w'S from 
the language if s. 3 (2) of the Act, that the party must apply to the Commissioner 
directly and not through some other authority· or official, 
For that pur!'ose, 
proof of at least specific authorisation by the Commissioner, after the introduc-
tion of s. 3(2), was required. 
[1094C; 1095A & Fl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 222 of 1975. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 8th 
August, 1973 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 189 
1 
of 1972. 
B. Sen, Mrs. Leila Seth, B. Mohan, Parveen Kumar and 0. P. 
Khaitan for the appellant. 
T. S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer and P. K. Pillai for Respondent No. 4 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BEG, J. The appellant, here, by special leave, is a tenant of premises 
in Dehradun in respect of which the landlord respondent No. 4 had 
sought permission, under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control 
of Rent & Eviction Act III of 194 7 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 
f 
I 
BALGOPAL DAS V. U.P. STATE (Beg, J.) 
I 093 
Act'), to sue for his eviction. 
The permission was granted by the 
Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Dehradun, as long ago as 11 August, 
1969, and, there:j.fter, the suit for ejectment of the appellant was filed 
on 19th November, 1969. 
Section 3, sub. sec. (I) of the Act had merely imposed a bar on 
suits in Civil Courts filed without the permission of the District Magis-
trate except on certain grounds which are given there. The plaintiff-
respondent, one Mrs. Sheila Ka1ha wife of a retired army officer, was 
given permission to file her suit on the ground that she required the 
accommodation for personal residence. She is said to have been living 
at considerable expense to her at New Delhi due to inability to live 
in her own house at Dehradun as it has been occupied by the appellant. 
The tenant had applied on 19th August, 1969, for a certified copy 
of the order of the Rent Control Officer granting the landlord permis-
sion to sue and got its copy on 25th August, 1969. Thereafter, the 
tenant filed a revision application 
under section 3(2) of the Act, 
purporting to be made to the Commissioner, Meerut D.i~ision, but 
actually filed on 16th September, 1969, before an Add1t10nal Dis-
trict Magistrate of Dehradun who had forwarded it on to the Com-
missioner. 
The Revision Application was received in the Commis-
sione

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