LexTHE CENTRAL TALKIES LTD., KANPUR versus DWARKA PRASAD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COUR~REPORTS 495 THE CENTRAL TALKIES LTD., KANPUR v. DW ARKA PRASAD. (J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH and J. c. SHAH, JJ.) Rent Control-Ejectment suit with permission of District Magistrate-Additional District Magistrate, if can grant permission -Persona designata-U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Evic- tion Act, I947 (U. P. Ill of I947), ss. 2(d) and 3-Code of Crimi- nal Pro~edure, r898 (V of I898), s. ro. Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, enabled a landlord to file a suit for eviction of the tenant with the permission of the District Magistrate. Section 2(d) of the Act defined District Magistrate as including an officer authorised by the District Magistrate to perform any , 'O! his functions under the Act. By a notification issued under s. 10(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the U. P. Govern- ment appointed Mr. Seth to be an Additional District Magistrate "'with all the powers of a Dist~ict Magistrate under the said Code andn'iiaer any,other law for the time being in force." The respond- ent applied to the District Magistrate for permission to file a suit for ejectment against the ·appellant. The District. Magis- trate transferred the application to Mr. Seth the Additional District Magistrate who granted the permission, The appellants contended that the permission granted was invalid as the District Magistrate mentioned. in s. 3 of the Act was a persona designata and the permission could have been granted only by him or by an officer authorised by him to perform his functions and not by the Additional District Magistrate. H eU, that the permission granted by the Additional District Magistrate was valid, The notification issued by the Govern. ment invested Mr. Seth with all the powers of the District Magistrate under the Code as well as under any other law includ. ing the Eviction Act 1md he was competent to grant the permis- sion under s. 3. The District Magistrate mentioned ins. 3 was not a tersona designata. A persona designata is a person selected as an mdividual in his private capacity, and not in his capacity as filling a particular character or office. Kedlw Nath v. A!ool Chand, A.I.R. 1953 All. 62, dis- approved. Partllasaradhi Naidu v. KoteSfllara Rao, (1923) I.L.R. 47 Mad. 369 (F.B.), referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JUBISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 374 of 1957. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated Sep- tember 21, 1955, of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 251of1954 arisin& out of the judgment 6+ January 16, Centrat Talkies Ltd., Kanpur v. Dwarka Prasad Hidayatullah ]. 496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] and decree dated May 24, 1954, of the Civil Judge, Kanpur, in Suit No. 35 of 1949. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, G. S. Pathak and Naunit Lal for the appellant. N. C. Chatterjee, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji and P. L. Vohra, for the respondent. 196l. January 16. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J.-This is an appeal against the judgment aud decree of the High Court of Allahabad with a certificate granted by the High Court under Art. 133(l)(b) of the Constitution. The High Court, reversing the decision of the trial Court, decreed the present suit for ejectment against the appellants, and also awarded damages to the plaintiff-respondent at the rate of Rs. 593-12-0 per month. The suit was filed by the re~pondent, Babu Dwarka Prasad, against the appellants, Central Ta.Ikies Ltd., Kanpur, and Lala Ram Narain Garg, the Managing Director of the Company. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: Dwarka Prasad was the sole owner of a plot of land No.73/22 (old No .. 73/28) situated in Collectorgunj, Kanpur. In 1933 an agreement of lease was executed by five persons in favour of Lala Rameshwardas, the prede- cessor-in-title of Babu Dwarka Prasad, by which the five lessees took over on lease a hall and other construc- tions, which the lessor agreed to build at a cost of Rs. 16,000/- within four months. It was agreed that, if the lessor was required to spend an amount in excess of Rs. 16,000/-, he would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 annas per cent. per month from the second party till the end of tenancy. The tenancy was from month to month, and the period of the tenancy was fixed at 5 years in the first instance. This tenancy continued with variations in the amount of rent till the year 1946, and on January 15, 1946, Dwarka Prasa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.