Jagmohan Lal, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent filed by the Plaintiff -Respondent after obtaining the permission of the DM as required by Section 3 of the UP (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (to be hereinafter called as the Act). The suit was decreed by the trial Court. An appeal filed by the Defendant against that decree was also dismissed. The Defendant has now filed this second appeal.
(2.) I heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The only point that was urged before me by Sri D.S. Bajpai, learned Counsel for the Appellant was that the permission obtained by the landlord from the DM was not a valid permission in so far as it had been obtained at a time when the tenant had ceased to be the tenant of the premises as his tenancy had been terminated by the landlord by giving a notice Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. According to him it is necessary that the tenancy should subsist upto the time the permission is obtained and it is only after obtaining the permission that the tenancy should be terminated by the landlord by giving him a notice Under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act. This contention of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted in view of the clear language of Section 3 and the consistent view held by this Court on the subject. Section 3 provides that no suit shall without the permission of the DM, b filed in any Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the ground mentioned therein. So far as obtaining the permission of the DM is concerned, the section do not say at what stage it shall be acquire or at whose application it shall given or what will be the proceed to be followed by the DM before growing the permission. This section only creates a bar on the filing of a suit in any Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation unless such permission of the DM has been obtained, putting out of consideration for purposes of this appeal the grounds mentioned in Clauses (a) to (g) of that section. The word 'tenant' used in the expression 'suit...against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation' means a person who had occupied the accommodation as a tenant. It is not necessary that his tenancy should also continue upto the date of the filing of the suit. Obviously in the case a tenant from month to month the tenancy has to be determined by a notice Under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act before filing the suit. I cannot conceive of a suit for ejectment being filed against such a tenant if the word 'tenant' means a person whose contractual relationship of tenancy with his landlord subsists upto the date of the suit. Therefore the word 'tenant' in the aforesaid expression necessarily includes a person who had entered the premises as a tenant even though his tenancy has been determined by a notice before filing the suit. Sri Bajpai referred to a similar provision contained in Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act in which the legislature has specifically provided for such a suit against a tenant including a person whose tenancy had been determined. This means that in the term 'tenant' Delhi legislature has specifically included a person whose tenancy has been determined before filing the suit. In my opinion the draftsman who drafted the Delhi Act has simply made explicit what was already implicit in the said expression. The learned Counsel for the Appellant himself conceded that so far as the filing of the suit is concerned it is not necessary that the Defendant's tenancy should continue upto that date as the same will have to be determined in the case of month to month tenancy by means of a notice Under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act before filing such suit. What he contends is that the tenancy must subsist upto the time the permission of the DM is obtained. For that purpose we shall have to read some words in Section 3 which do not actually exist thereby imagining that the permission of the DM has to be obtained against a tenant and giving a different interpretation to the word tenant at this place from the meaning giving to that word in the subsequent expression 'suit against a tenant'. This is not permissible by any rules of interpretation.
(3.) SECTION 3 as it stands clearly shows that the permission of the DM must be obtained before filing the suit and not necessarily before terminating the tenancy by a notice Under Section 106. It is open to the landlord to terminate the tenancy by a notice Under Section 106 at any time. It is equally open to the tenant to comply with the notice and vacate; the premises on the date on which the tenancy is terminated and thereafter he would not be liable to pay any rent to the landlord. But if he does not comply with the notice the landlord cannot file a suit for ejectment against him unless he has obtained the permission of the DM, leaving apart those cases in which one or more of the grounds mentioned in (sic) exist. If the permission of the DM is not obtained and none of the grounds mentioned in that section exists the termination of tenancy would remain ineffectual so long as the Act remains in force. There is, however, nothing in Section 3 to support the proposition that the tenancy can be terminated by a notice Under Section 106 only after obtaining the permission of the DM and not prior to that. As observed by Trivedi J. in the Full Bench decision of Jagannath v. Smt. Chadrawati, 1969 AWR 720 at page 726 of the report: The prohibition is against filing of a suit and not from determining the tenancy. The tenancy Under Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act and a suit for ejectment can only follow the determination of the tenancy. Section 3 only postpones or defers the filing of the suit till the fetters mentioned in Section 3 are removed. The section does not create a fetter to the determination of the tenancy. The words 'no suit can be filed' in Section 3 of the Act cannot be interpreted also to mean that no tenancy can be determined. It would be adding certain words to the statute which do not exist there.;