Hari Swarup, J. - (1.) This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment from the house in dispute and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. The trial court decreed the suit and the first appellate court dismissed the defendant's appeal. The premises were such to which the provisions of the U. P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act applied. The suit had been filed on the basis of a permission from the District Magistrate under section 3 of the Act.
(2.) In the appeal learned counsel has pressed two points. The first is that the court below has erred in not considering itself the needs of the parties. According to him, if the needs of the parties had been properly considered the permission could not have been granted to the landlord for filing the present suit. The second submission of the learned counsel is that the notice to terminate the tenancy was given before the permission was obtained. On both the points the lower appellate court has held against the appellant.
(3.) In support of the first contention learned counsel has relied an the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ismail v. Nanney Lal, 1969 R.C.J. 453 and also on the decision of this Court reported in Asa Singh v. B. D. Sanwal and others, A.I.R. 1969 Allahabad 474, and in Dwarka Prasad and others v. Additional Commissionerm 1966 A.L.J. 850. The following observation in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ismail (supra) has been stressed:- "The court trying the suit for eviction has to find out whether a propel notice to quit was given and whether the tenancy was properly determined. It must also examine the grounds on the basis of which the landlord seeks to evict the tenant and decide for itself whether such grounds exist. Neither the District Magistrate nor the Commissioner nor the State Government is obliged to disclose any reasons which may influence the said authorities in coming to their decision and the court is not called upon to 'examine whether the conclusion of any of the said authorities was properly arrived at." On the basis of this observation learned counsel has contended that the court can go behind the order of the District Magistrate and see if the order was properly passed. No such inference in any opinion can be drawn from the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court. When it is said that the court should examine the grounds for eviction, it refers to the grounds mentioned in section 3 of the Act, and as has already been held by this court in a number of decisions that one of those grounds is the permission of tee District Magistrate. The civil court is thus only to see if in fact a permission under section 3 for filing the suit exists.;