FIRM RAM SARAN DHONDHA RAM THROUGH BALADIN Vs. IST ADDL. MUNSIF AZAMGARH AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-1965-7-31
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on July 21,1965

Firm Ram Saran Dhondha Ram Through Baladin Appellant
VERSUS
Ist Addl. Munsif Azamgarh And Others Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BASI RAM V/S. MANTRI LAL [REFERRED TO]
LALA SHRI BHAGWAN AND ANR. V/S. RAM GHAND AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.C. Manghanda, J. - (1.)This is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution directed against the order of the State of U.P. dated 14. 11.1962, Under Sec. 7F of the U.P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, hereinafter called the Act, reversing the order of the Commissioner and upholding the order of the RC and EO granting permission to the landlord Under Sec. 3 of the Act for filing a suit for ejectment. After he permission Under Sec. 3 of the Act was granted by the RC and EO a suit for ejectment was filed on 12.9.1961 in the civil court. On 23.10.1961, the Commissioner allowed the revision of the tenant. The landlord went up in revision to the State Government Under Sec. 7F of the Act. The State Government by its order dated 14.11.1962 set aside the order of the Commissioner and restored that of the RC and EO. Hence this writ petition by the tenant.
(2.)Three contentions have been raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and they are dealt with seriatim. The first contention was that as the Commissioner had set aside the order of the RC and EO, the permission granted by that order was of no avail and the suit instituted was invalid. There is no force in this contention in view of the Full Bench Decision in Basi Ram v/s. Mantri Lal (1) (1964 AWR 617). This case was sought to be distinguished on the ground that it, was the order of the State Government Under Sec. 7F of the Act which was challenged and not as in the present case the order of the Commissioner which set aside the permission granted by the RC and EO. No such distinction can be drawn as the Full Bench has dealt with Ss. 3(3), 3 (4) and 7F of the Act. According to the Full Bench Decision the landlord could file a suit and was not required to wait till the order in revision was passed by the Commissioner or the State Government which is not bound to pass the order within any specified time.
(3.)It is next contended that in any event the order passed by the State Government Under Sec. 7F of the Act was passed without granting a hearing to the Petitioner. Reliance for the proposition that an order passed Under Sec. 7F of the Act is a quasi judicial "order" was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Lala Shri Bhagwan and Anr. v/s. Ram Ghand and another [2] [1965 AWR 304]. That decision nowhere lays down that the parties must actually be heard in support of the revision, all that it requires is that the parties should have been given a reasonable opportunity of placing their respective points before the State Government. There is no allegation that the order passed by the State Government was without such an opportunity having been given. It has been held in Civil Misc. Writ No. 1661 of 19b5 decided on the 5th of May 1965 by V. Bhargava and S.D. Khare, JJ. that it is not necessary for the State Govt. to give a personal hearing to the parties before it passes an order Under Sec. 7F of the Act.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.