B. D. Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition and the connected second appeal gave rise to certain interesting questions.
(2.) PETITIONER had been tenant of a portion of House No. 5, Crosthwaite Road, Allahabad, Jagan Nath Shukla (since dead)-the landlord applied to the District Magistrate, Allahabad, under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act (U. P. Act III of 1947) for permission to sue for ejectment of the tenant. The permission was granted on April 17, 1967, by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad, providing that it shall be operative after August 17, 1967, and in the meantime the tenant, could find another accommodation for himself. The revision filed by the tenant against this order was dismissed by the Commissioner on August 29, 1967. The representation made to the State Government under Section 7-F of the 1947 Act dismissed also on December 8, 1967. The petitioner then took the matter to a writ petition before this Court, which was dismissed on February 27, 1969. On July 14, 1967, Jagan Nath Shukla the landlord instituted Original Suit No. 570 of 1967 for eviction against the petitioner in the Court of the Munsif West, Allahabad, on the basis of the permission granted under section 3 aforesaid and he also relied, in the alternative, upon the ground of default incurred by the tenant in payment of rent. The arrears of rent besides damages for use and occupation were also claimed. The tenancy had been determined by notice given by the landlord under registered cover dated September 30, 1966. The trial court was of the view that the permission relied by the landlord was invalid since it was in respect of only a portion of the accommodation under tenancy and the notice was also defective on that ground. The suit was moreover held to be premature in so far as the relief for eviction is concerned. On this ground the suit was dismissed for eviction under the decree dated July 23, 1971. That decree was passed for recovery of rent for the period of February 1967 to June 1967. Jagan Nath Shukla having died during the pendency of the suit, this was pursued by his legal representative impleaded as respondent no. 2 in the present writ petition. Against the dismissal of the suit for eviction, the landlord filed civil Appeal No. 224 of 1971. The lower appellate court reached the finding that the permission relied by him was in respect of the entire accommodation under tenancy and hence it was not invalid on this account. The validity of the notice was also upheld. It was affirmed, however, that the suit for eviction in so far as based upon the permission under section 3 was pre- mature. The tenant bad not incurred default in payment of rent and hence the eviction could not be had on that ground either. In the result, the appeal was dismissed on September 1, 1975. Second Appeal No. 223 of 1976 was thereafter presented in this Court on February 3, 1976, by the landlord and this was admitted at the preliminary hearing on November 29, 1976. The landlord made an application under Section 21 (1) (b) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act XIII of 1972) against the petitioner before the Prescribed Authority, Allahabad, on ground of bona fide requirement for himself and his wife. The application listed as Case No. 196 of 1972. was rejected by the prescribed Authority on August 16, 1973. An appeal filed against this order under section 22 of the Act XlII of 1972 was dismissed on May 29, 1975. The application under section 1 read with section 43 (2) (rr) of the 1972 Act was made thereafter by the landlord respondent no. 2 before the prescribed Authority on or about October 1, 1980. This was registered as Case No. 112 of 1980. The basis for this application was the permission granted to the landlord under Section 3 of the old Act dated April 17, 1967, which had become final with the rejection of the representation by the State Government on December 8, 1967. This application was allowed by the prescribed Authority under the impugned order dated October 22, 1981.
(3.) AGGRIEVED the tenant has preferred the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution wherein he seeks writ of certiorari to quash the order of the prescribed Authority dated October 22, 1981. viae Annexure 3. The second appeal filed by the landlord is against the decree of the lower appellate court dated September 1, 1975, in Original Suit No. 570 of 1967, whereby the relief for eviction was denied to him on ground that the suit was premature. The petition and this second appeal have been heard together with the consent of counsel for the parties. Admittedly Panna Lal Sonkar (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner') had been the tenant in the building in dispute for and on behalf of Jagan Nath Shukla deceased. Upon the death of the landlord, his son Yogendra Chandra shukla has been substituted as the legal representative. The then landlord applied for permission under Section 3 of the U. P. Act III of 1947 on ground that he required the permission for an Aushadhalaya to be run by his daughter-in-law. The permission was granted on April 17, 1967, by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad. The operative portion of the order reads : "In view of my above findings, I am fully satisfied that the need of the appellant, Sri Jagannath Prasad Shukla, the landlord of House No. 5, Crosth-waite Road, Allahabad, for the accommodation in dispute which is in the tenancy and occupation of Sri Panna Lal Sonkar, the opposite-party, is genuine and pressing. I, therefore, grant permission to the applicant-landlord under Section 3 of the Act to file a civil suit for ejectment of his tenant Sri Panna Lal Sonkar, opposite party." "This order will be operative after 17-8-67 and in the meantime the opposite party find out some other accommodation in the city of Allahabad.";