K.B. Asthana, J. - (1.) THIS is a Plaintiff's appeal from an appellate decree of dismissal of her suit for recovery of rent and damages and for eviction of the Defendants Respondent from the accommodation in suit.
(2.) THE facts necessary for understanding the controversy raised in this appeal may be briefly stated. The Plaintiff Smt. Haliman was a tenant in a part of a big house in which in other parts there were three other tenants viz. Abdul Sattar, Mohammad Ahmad and Abdul Majid, each having separate accommodation. Smt. Haliman purchased the house and thereafter filed an application Under Section 3 of the UP (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (herein -after referred to as the Act) for permission to file a suit for eviction against the said three tenants on the ground that her family had expanded and she was in genuine need of greater accommodation, the accommodation occupied by her was too small for the need of the big family. Separate objections were filed before the RG and EO by the said three tenants, they denied the allegations of the Applicant -landlady and pleaded that she was not in genuine need of the accommodation and pressed their own need for the accommodation. After considering the need of the Applicant -landlady on the basis of the material on record but without discussing the case of the respective tenants as to their need, the ADM passed the following order on 25 -5 -1964: Accordingly, I hereby grant her permission to sue any one of the three opposite parties for eviction. The choice is left to her and she would not be entitled to sue more than one of the opposite parties Mohammad Ahmad, Abdul Majid and Abdul Sattar. Against the above order of the ADM, Abdul Sattar appears to have filed a revision Under Section 7(3) of the Act. It is not clear from the record whether the other two tenants also filed any revision. The revision of Abdul Sattar was dismissed by the Addl. Commr. on 17 -7 -1964. On 21 -7 -1964 Smt. Haliman, the landlady, instituted the suit giving rise to this appeal against Abdul Sattar on the allegation that she had obtained permission for his eviction from the DM Under Section 3 of the Act and has terminated the tenancy by a notice Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is not necessary to refer to the other pleas in the plaint as nothing turns upon them in this appeal. In his written statement Abdul Sattar pleaded, inter -alia, that the permission obtained was inoperative and ineffective in law being vague, discriminatory and leaving the decision to landlady herself to pick and chose the tenant against whom the suit for eviction could be filed.
(3.) THE learned Munsif, who tried the suit, held that the permission granted Under Section 3 by the DM was a valid permission not open to challenge before a civil court and the tenancy of the Defendant having been terminated by a valid notice Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, he was liable to be evicted. The suit of the Plaintiff was decreed for eviction and other reliefs. On appeal by Abdul Sattar, the learned Civil Judge, who heard the appeal, took the view that there being no permission in law as contemplated by Section 3 of the Act, the suit of the Plaintiff was barred. On this preliminary point the learned Civil judge allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the court below and dismissed the Plaintiff's suit. Now the Plaintiff -landlady has come up in second appeal before this Court.;