- (1.) JUDGEMENT DWIVEDI, J. Two questions referred to this Bench are : 1. If in a suit instituted by a landlord for ejectment of his tenant with the permission of the District Magistrate obtained under S. 3(1) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, the State Government on being moved by the tenant to pass an appropriate order under S. 7F on the record of the case granting permission passes an order suspending the operation of the permission, what is its effect on further proceedings in the suit pending in court ? 2. If the above-mentioned suit is decreed in the landlords favour and the tenant files an appeal and during its pendency the State Government passes an order purporting to be one in exercise of the power conferred by S. 7-F directing that the permission granted by the District Magistrate would have effect after a certain date, which date is subsequent to the date of the decree under appeal what is its effect on the decree ?
(2.) I do not propose to answer the first question in this case. The answer to the second question is determinative of the case. There has been little argument at the bar about the power of the State Government to pass an interim order suspending the operation of the permission of the District Magistrate. As at present advised, I am inclined to the view that the State Government has no such power. On the second question I am of opinion that the order of the State Government would have no effect on the decree under appeal. My opinion is based on a very simple reasoning which I had indicated at the time of arguments. I still adhere to it.
(3.) THE order of the State Government, it may be observed, affirms the grant of permission by the District Magistrate; only the date of its operation is varied. The lower appellate Court could not take on record the order of the State Government under R. 27 of O. 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order could not be admitted on record under S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as such admission would encourage multiplicity of proceedings and would not be in the interests of justice. The lower appellate Court wrongly admitted the order as additional evidence. As the order cannot be read in evidence, it can have no effect on the decree under appeal.;