K.N.SETH,J. - (1.) THE defendant appellant is a tenant of the preraises in dispute. The landlord moved an application under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (Act No. Ill of 1947) seeking permission to file a suit for the ejectment of the tenant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the applica­tion. The revision filed by the landlord was dismissed by the Com­missioner. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, the land­lord approached the State Government under Section 7-F of the Act. The State Government, by its order dated March 19, 1968, granted the requisite permission,
(2.) ON the strength of the order of the State Government, the land­lord filed a suit in the court of Munsif, Allahabad, for ejectment of the tenant and for recovery of arrears of rent. The suit was con­tested, inter alia, on the ground that the order of the State Govern­ment was illegal and vofd as it was not in conformity with law, and it did not confer any right on the plaintiff to sue for ejectment. The trial court decreed the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. On appeal by the tenant, the first appellate court confirmed the decree eiectment but set aside the decree for arrears of rent. The tenant has come up in appeal to this Court. During the pendency of the second appeal, the tenant filed a petition under Article 22fi of the Constitution challenging the legality of the order of the State Government dated March 19, 1968 passer un­der Section 7-F. This Court allowed the petition on the ground that the order of the State Government did not contain any reason for setting aside the order of the Commissioner. The impugned order was quashed. The State Government was directed to restore the re-vision and to decide it in accordance with law. The second appeal filed by the tenant was directed to be listed for hearing after disposal of the petition under Section 7-F by the State Government in pur­suance of the order of this Court. Parties are agreed that the state Government, by its order dated September 29. 1973. reiected the land­lord's petition under Section 7-F and that order has become final.
(3.) THE only question for consideration in the present appeal is whether the-suit was validly instituted and the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for ejectment. It was contended by Sri Tripathi that the suit was filed on the strength of the permission granted by State Government, the permission has since been quashed by this Court; the State Government on a reconsideration of the matter reiected the position of the landlord for grant of the requisite permission-in view of these developments the suit must be deemed to have been filed without requisite permission and hence no decree for ejectment could be validly passed; the appeal being a continuation of the suit, the ap­pellate court is competent to take into consideration the situation as it exists on the date of passing the decree.;