R.L. Gulati, J. - (1.) THE Petitioners Ram Prakash Agnihotri and Rama Kant were living in a tenanted house at Fatehgarh, the landlord being Jagannath Prasad, opposite party No. 4. On 1 -9 -1964 the landlord obtained permission from the RC and EO Fatehgarh, opposite party No. 3, Under Section 3(1) of the U.P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') to file a suit for the ejectment of the Petitioners. A revision application filed by the Petitioners against the order of the RC and EO was dismissed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, by his order dated 10 -2 -1965. Thereupon the Petitioners made an application dated 25 -2 -1965 to the State Government Under Section 7 -F of the Act and the State Government passed the following order on 27 -2 -1965, staying the operation of the order of the Commissioner: Operation of the permission Under Section 3 of the Act granted by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad to the opposite party landlord to file a suit for the Petitioner's ejectment from the house in question is stayed pending consideration of the case by the State Government. Parties may please be informed immediately. A copy of this order was forwarded to the Commissioner and was also served upon the landlord through the RC and EO, Farrukhabad on 4 -3 -1965. The landlord, however, inspite of the service upon him of the interim stay order of the State Government, instituted a suit on 9 -3 -1965, for the Petitioner's ejectment in the court of the City Munsif, Farrukhabad. The RC and EO made a report to the State Government saying that the landlord had already instituted, the suit in pursuance of the permission granted by the rent control authorities without mentioning the fact that the suit was instituted after the order staying the operation of the order of the Commissioner had been served upon the landlord. On the receipt of this report from the RC and EO, the State Government passed an order on 10 -11 -1965 dismissing the Petitioner's application Under Section 7 -F on the ground that the suit having already been instituted, the proceedings before the State Government had become infructuous. The Petitioner thereupon filed the present petition which was admitted by this Court on 10 -3 -1966 and on the application of the Petitioners for interim relief, it was ordered on 5 -7 -1966 that while the suit may go on, the decree shall not be executed during the pendency of the writ petition.
(2.) THE Petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the State Government dated 10 -11 -1965, as also for a writ of mandamus commanding the State Government to decide the Petitioner's application Under Section 7 -F of the Act on merits on the ground that the suit having been filed in contravention of the stay order issued by the State Government, the State Government was not right in the view that the proceedings Under Section 7 -F had become in -fructuous. After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of opinion that the contention of the Petitioner must be upheld.
(3.) ACCORDING to the scheme of the Act, the permission to file a suit for the ejectment of a tenant is to be granted by the DM Under Sub -section (1) of Section 3. That permission, however, is not final and is subject to the order passed by the Commissioner in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction Under Sub -section (3) of Section 3. The order of the Commissioner in term is subject to the order passed by the State Government Under Section 7 -F of the Act. Under Section 7 -F the State Government has been vested with a power of wide amplitude including the power to revoke the order of the Commissioner granting the permission. As has been held by the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Dass v. Paras Nath, 1968 AWR 713 the State Government can exercise the power to revoke the permission granted by the Commissioner only before the suit itself is instituted. After the institution of the suit the revocation of the permission by the State Government Under Section 7 -F shall have no affect upon the suit. It follows therefore that for the effective exercise of its jurisdiction Under Section 7 -F the State Government must act before the suit is instituted and in case it cannot do so, it may stay the order of the Commissioner granting the permission during the proceedings Under Section 7 -F so as to prevent them from becoming in -fructuous. Such a power of granting interim relief, in my opinion, is ancillary to the jurisdiction vested in the State Government Under Section 7 -F, even though there is no specific provision in the Act authorising the State Government to grant such an interim relief. His Lordship then referred to case law enunciated in M.K. Mohd. Kunhi v. Income Tax Officer : (1966) 59 ITR 171; Income Tax Officer v. M.K. Mohd. Kunhi : 71 ITR 815; Swarnambika Motor Service v. Vahita Motor Service, 1956 (2) MLJ S N 12 and Thammalapuram Bus Trans v. RTO Malabar : AIR 1957 Ker. 142 and concluded: It was held in these cases that the power to stay was a necessary corollary to the power to entertain an appeal or revision. The contention of the learned Counsel for the opp. parties that the stay order granted by the State Government was unauthorised because of the absence of any specific provision in that regard in the Act has, therefore, no force and is rejected.;