Satish Chandra, C. J. - (1.) : -
(2.) THE petitioner is the landlord of an accommodation of which respondents 2 to 5 were the tenants. THE petitioner landlord applied for and obtined permission to file a suit for the ejectment of the tenants. This order was confirmed by the Commissioner in revision on 24th September, 1971. THE tenant went up to the State Government in revision but the same was dismissed on the 26th May, 1972. In 1972, the plaintiff-applicant filed a suit for eviction of the respondents. The suit was decreed on 8th of April, 1976. The defendent tenants filed a revision which was dismissed on 11th February, 1977. They came in revision to the High Court which allowed the revision and remanded the matter to the trial court by an order dated 29th of July, 1978. Thereafter in August, 1978 the petitioner landlord applied for an order of eviction of the tenants under clause (rr) of Section 43 (2) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act) (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This application was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority on the ground that since the suit for ejectment was pending in the regular Civil Court an application under clause (rr) of Section 43 (2) was not maintainable. Aggrieved, the landlord has come to this Court and filed the present writ petition.
(3.) AT this stage sole question of law is whether an application under clause (rr) of Section 43 (2) of the Act is maintainable even though a suit filed on the basis of the permission under section 3 of U. P. Act No. 3 of 1947 may be pending disposal in the Civil Court. Clause (rr) reads as follows :- "(rr) where any permission referred to in Section 3 of the old Act has been obtained on any ground specified in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 21, and has become final either before the commencement of this Act, or in accordance with the provisions of this sub-section, after the commencement of this Act, whether or not a suit for the eviction of the tenant has been instituted, the landlord may apply to the prescribed authority for his eviction under Section 21, and thereupon the prescribed authority shall order the eviction of the tenant from the building under tenancy, and it shall not be necessary for the prescribed authority to satisfy itself afresh as to the existence of any ground as aforesaid, and such order shall be final and shall not be open to appeal under section 22." Clause (rr) was not there in the Act as originally enacted by the Legislature. It was introduced by the Amending Act No. 37 of 1972, where the material phrase was "and a suit for the eviction of the tenant has not been instituted." This was a condition precedent to the maintainability of the application under clause (rr).;