B. Upadhya, J. - (1.) This is a Plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment from a house, for arrears of rent and for mesne profits. The suit was brought on the allegation that the Plaintiffs are the owners of the house situate at Hatia Bazar, Kanpur and the Defendants were the tenants of the first and second floors of the house on a monthly rent of Rs. 22/8/- . It was alleged that the Plaintiff needed the house for his own occupation and obtained the permission of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Kanpur, who was authorised by the District Magistrate to grant such permission, to evict the tenant. It was further alleged that the Defendant had caused damage to the premises and were therefore liable to eviction. A notice Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the Defendants tenancy is also said to have been served on the Defendant. The suit was contested and it was pleaded interalia that the permission granted by the District Magistrate was invalid and that in any event that permission ceased to have any legal force because it had been set aside by the Commissioner in revision. The main contention therefore which was raised at the trial and has survived up to this stage, is whether the suit which was instituted after obtaining the permission of the District Magistrate must fail because the permission granted by the District Magistrate Under Section 3 of the UP Control of Rent and Eviction Act had been set aside by the Commissioner in revision in exercise of the powers vested in him under that statute. The trial court decreed the suit. It took the view that the granting of the permission by the District Magistrate only removed the statutory obstacle to the Plaintiff filing a suit for eviction. Once the suit had been properly filed after obtaining the permission, the permission exhausted itself and subsequent reversal of the order of the District Magistrate was of no legal effect, the Plaintiff's suit was decreed. On appeal the lower appellate court took the view that the amendments made in section 3 of the UP Control of Rent and Eviction Act in 1952 and 1954 made the order of the District Magistrate final subject to the orders that might be passed by the Commissioner of the State Government Under Sub-Section (3) of section 3 or Under Section 7F of Act III of 1947. The learned Judge therefore in a careful and well reasoned judgment expressed the opinion that the permission ceased to be a valid permission and the suit as instituted by the Plaintiff must be treated as one filed without any valid permission by the District Magistrate. He allowed the appeal and dismissed the Plaintiff's suit so far as ejectment was concerned.
(2.) It appears necessary to set out briefly the relevant facts relating to the question now debated in this appeal. Permission was granted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 3-11-1952 (Ex. 7). Notice was served on the Defendants Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 26-11-1952. The Defendants sent a reply on 22-12-1952 (Ex. A 12). The suit was filed on 22-1-1953. In their reply Ex. A 12 the Defendants informed the Plaintiff that they did not admit the validity of the permission granted to them by the Rent Control Officer and that the Defendants had challenged that permission and had submitted a representation to the State Government Under Section 7F of Act III of 1947 and the permission was therefore not final. This revision to the State Government was preferred actually on 8-12-1952 and it was transferred to the Commissioner by the State Government on 18-12-1952. On 2-11-1953 the permission that had been granted on 3-11-1952 by the Rent Control Officer was revoked and the case was remanded by the Commissioner to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer who by an order dated 10-5-1954 passed an order refusing permission to the Plaintiff.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued the appeal on two grounds the first ground urged by him was that the subsequent revocation of the permission by the Commissioner was of no avail when the permission had already been acted upon and had exhausted itself as soon as the suit was instituted by the Plaintiff. UP Act 24 of 1952 amended the provisions of section 3 (1) of Act III of 1947 and now the amended provision reads as follows:- "3 (1) subject to any order passed Under Sub-Section (3) no suit shall, without the permission of the District Magistrate, be filed in any Civil Court against the tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds: Sub-S. (3) referred to above reads as follows:- The Commissioner shall as far as may be, hear the application within six weeks from the date of its making and if he is satisfied that the District Magistrate has acted illegally or with material irregularity or he has wrongfully refused to act he will set aside the order of the District Magistrate.;