LexSHRI BHAGWAN AND ANR. versus RAM CHAND AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
218 SHRI BHAGWAN AND ANR. A v. RAM CHAND AND ANR. March I, 1965 [P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., RAGHUBAR DAIYAL AND V. RAMA- SWAMI, JJ.J B U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, ss. 3(4) and 7-F-Power of District Magistrate to grant permission to sue a tenant for eviction-Whether revisional power of State Governmeni quasi-judicial and be exercised by observing ru.les of natural justice. The appellants applied to the Rent Controller and Eviction Ofllcer under s. 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, for permission to file a suit in ejectment against the predeces.- sors-in-interest of the respondents who were the present tenants of certain premises in Agra. After a series of proceedings before the Officer and the appellate authority, the latter eventually ordered thatl the permission applied for should be granted. The respondent then moved the Commissioner of Agra in revision and the orden granting permission was set aside by him; but upon an application made to it under s. 7-F of the Act, the State Government directed! the Commissioner to revise his order. Accordingly the latter cancelled his previous order and confirmed the order granting permission pass- ed ty the appeilate authority. The appellants' ejectment suit, in which one of the issues was whether the permission granted to sue the respcndents was valid, was decreed in favour of the appellants and an appeal against this decree to the First Additional Civil Judge was dismissed. However, on appeal to the High Cour:t, the single Judge, differing from the view expressed in earlier decisions of the High Court that the revisional order which the· State Government was authorised to pass under s. 7-F is a purely administrative order, came to the conclusion that the permission g,ranted ·.vas invalid l:ecause the State Government, when exercising its authority under s. 7-F of the .Act was required to decide the matter in a quasi-judiciaV manner and by following principles of natural justice and should lt.ave given the'respondents an opportunity of being heard. On appeal to this Court: HELD: The revisional proceedings which go before tbe State Government under s. 7-F are. like the proceedings before tbe District Magistrate under s. 3(2) as \Vell as before the Commi33ioner under s. 3(3), quasi-judicial in character and all these tbree authorities must act according io the principles of natural justice. [226 B, CJ. The right conferred on the tenant not to be evicted. except on the specified grounds enumerated in els. (a) to (g) of s. 3(1) is " statutory right of great significance and it is this statutory right c D E F G of which the tenant would be deprived when the landlord obtains· H the permission of ihe District Magistrate. Therefore the Act must be taken. to require that in exercising their respective powers to grant the permission, the appropriate authorities have to consider the matter in a quasi-judicial manner and to follow the principles of natural justice before reaching their conclusion. [226H-227B]. The Associated Cement Compani'es Ltd. v. Bhupendra Cement Works, Surajpur v. P. N. Sharma, (1965] 2 S.C.R. 366 and. Ridge v. Baldwin & Ors. L.R. [1964] A.C. 40, referred to. • --~----------- \ ---- .... '' SRRI RRAGWA>iv. RMl° CHAND (Gaje>"uir .. :garlk~~.'o;J.) .. 219' . ' : ' - ' ' . ·; __ ,~ ·.~: .. ,::::;:,;·,·: -~: :~:·:.. . , A Narottam Saran v. State of U.P. A.LR.; 1954, All. 232 and l\Iurli- dhar v. Strtte of U.P. A.LR. 1964 All. 148, disapproved.- -~· -· · B c D · Lannan Purslwttam Paimputkar v, ·state of Bombay [1964] 1 S.C.R. 200, considered. · Obiter : Ccnsiderations of judicial propr'.ety and decorum require that if a learned single Judge hearing a matter is inclined to take the view that the earlier decisions of \he High Ccurt, whether of a Division Bench or of a s'.nglc Judge, need to be reconsidered, · he should not embark upon that enquiry sitting as a single Judge, _ but should refer the ·matter to a Division- Bench or, in a proper case. place the relevant papers before the Chief Justice to enable ·him - to constitute a larger Bench to examine the 'question. That is the proper and traditional way to deal with such matters and it is . founded on healthy principles of j'1dicial decorum and propriety. [228B-D] . C1Vll APPELLATE JuRISDlCTION : . Civil Appeal No. 764 of .. 1964. • Appeal by special leave from the· j
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.