S.S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) This is a tenant's second appeal from the concurrent decisions of the courts below decreeing the landlord's suit for their ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent. The appeal is confined to the decree for ejectment. The defendant appellants are the tenants of two shops in the city of Agra of which the plaintiff-respondents are the landlords. The plaintiffs obtained permission from the State Government under Sec. 7-F of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act to file a suit for the ejectment of the defendants and then terminated the tenancy. As the defendants refused to vacate, they filed the present suit. The defendants resisted the suit and pleaded in defence that the orders granting the landlord permission to sue for ejectment were illegal. Both the courts below rejected this plea and decreed the suit. The defendants have now come to this Court in second appeal.
(2.) The only point urged in support of the appeal is that the order of the State Government under Sec. 7-F of the Act and of the Commissioner passed in pursuance of that order by which he cancelled his previous order and granted the landlord permission "as directed" are both invalid. I may state at the outset that during the trial no witness appeared before the trial court, and the evidence consisted entirely of certified copies of the various applications made before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (hereinafter called R.C. and E.O.), the Additional District Magistrate (to be called A.D.M.), the District Magistrate (D.M.), the Commissioner, Agra, and the State Government and of orders passed by these authorities.
(3.) The first plaintiff, Shri Bhagwan applied to the R.C. and E.O. under Sec. 3 for permission to file a suit for the ejectment of the predecessor-in-interest of the present defendants. That officer granted the per-mission by his order dated 1-9-1951 (Ext. 30). But the tenants moved the A. D. M. who had been authorised by the D. M, to confirm the decisions of the R.C. and E.O. or withhold confirmation. He declined to confirm the permission and remanded the case to the R.C. and E.O. for a fresh hearing. On re-hearing the R.C. and E.O. changed his view. and by his order dated 9-8-1952 (Ext. A-51) rejected the landlord's application for permission to sue. On 16-8-1952 the landlord moved the A. D. M. and in his application (Ext. 28) he prayed that the R.C. and E.O's. order "be not confirmed and necessary permission to eject be granted". On 16-9-1952 he made another application addressed to the D. M. (Ext. 44), in which he again attacked the R.C. and E.O's. order re fusing permission on various grounds and prayed for the grant of permission to eject the defendants. On 18-11-1952 the A. D. M. passed a detailed order but adjourned the hearing, and on 9-12-1952 he passed a short order (Ext. A-55) granting the landlord permission to sue for ejectment. The tenants filed a revision before the Commissioner of Agra who allowed it on 4-21953 on the ground that if the tenant was ejected his business would be up set. (Ext. A-50). Thereupon the landlord moved the State Government which passed an order under Sec. 7-F, in the form of a letter dated 7-5-1953 addressed to the Commissioner (Ext. A-49), stating that after perusing the order of the A. D. M. and the Commissioner they considered that the need of the landlord was genuine. But instead of giving a decision, Government requested the Commissioner that his order of 4-2-1953 (Ext. A-50) might be "reconsidered and revised and the applicant Shri Bhagwan be permitted to sue his tenants in the civil court for ejectment front the two shops mentioned above." The case then went back to the Commissioner and on 28-7-1953 he passed an order (Ext. 32) by which he cancelled his previous order "as direct-ed" and confirmed the draw of the A. D. M. granting permission. The legality of the order of State Government under Sec. 7-F and of the order of the Commissioner made in pursuance of it is challenged in this appeal.;