# PRABHAWATI v. DR. PRITAM KAUR

- **Citation:** [1972] 3 S.C.R. 991
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-03-22
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1813 of 1971
- **Bench:** HEGl>E, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, G. K. Mittbr
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/prabhawati-v-dr-pritam-kaur-5644
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

. . U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1941-S. 3-
/ts scope-.Qrder of the HIRh •Court dil't!ctinR the State Govt. to rehear
a rtvislon pttltlon-R<spondent filed eviction suit before rehearing--
Whether the tuit for eviction maintainable,
The. appellant,' a tenant, was sought to be evicted by Respondent.
She applied to the Distri<:t Magistrate, who was also the Rent Controller
under s .. 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act
1947, for permission to sue the appellant for her eviction and the permission was granted.
As against that order, the appellant went up iii
revision to the State Government.
During the pendency of that proceeding, the State Government passed an order staying the operation of
the permission granted by the Commissioner pending consideration of the
case by the State Government. La•er, the State Government allowed the
revision petition and set aside the premission granted.
Respondent challenged the legality of the order made by the .. State
Govt. before I/le High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. · The
High Court set aside the order of the Government on the ground that
the State Govt. in deciding the revision petition had allowed itself t·o
be inftuenced by irrelevant considerations.
It directed the State Govt.
t·o rehear the appellant's revision application according to law. This order
was passed on February 28, 1967. On the very next day, the respondent
filed a suit for eviction of the appellant. When the revision petition came
up for hearing before the State Govt., the Respondent
submitted
that
in view of the institution of the suit, the State Govt. was not competent
to hear the revision petition and accordingly, the State Govt, dismissed
the petition on the sole ground that the proceeding be'fore it became
infl'l;'ctunus in view of the institution of the civil suit.
The appellant challenged thai order of the State Government by means
of a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court held that the
stay grnnted _by the State Govt. had lapsed when the revision petition was
dispOSCd of.
Therefore, on the institution of the civil suit for. e\iction,
her revision petition before the State Govt. became infructuous.
As
against that order, this appeal. has been brought by special leave. Allowing the appeal, and directing 'the State Govt. to restore and decide the
revision petition according to law.
HELD : The State Government and the High Court were not justified
in dismissing the revision petition as being infructuous because of the
institution of the suit. One of the implications of the order di the High
Court directing the State Government to rehear the revision petition of
the appellant was that the respondent was precluded from filing the
intended suit for eviction till .the State Government heard the r~vision
petition. Otherwise, the direction given by the High Court would remain
unobeyed.
The respondent cannot be permitted 'o obotruct the implellMll!tation of that direction and that too, a direction given at her instance.
~11)1. Ir ~
n()! open to the ~t
te ~ ~ .Wt befo~
992
SUPREME C<:JUR T REPORTS
[1972] 3 S.C.R.
the revision petition was disposed of by the State Government.
The
A
suit filed by the respondent was a premature one. Such a suit did not
bar the State Government from disposing of the revision pet:tion in pur~
•uance of the order made by the H;gh Court. [999 BJ
Shri Bhagwan v. Ramachand, [1965] 3 S.C.R. 218, Bhagwan Das v.
Paras Nath, , 1969] 2 S.C.R. 297 a;:d Mohammad Ismail v. Naney Lal,
rt 9691 3 .S. C.R. 894, referred to.

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
II
PRABHAWATI
v.
DR. PRITAM KAUR
March 22, 1972
991
[K. S, HEGl>E, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND G. K. MITTBR,JJ.]
. . U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1941-S. 3-
/ts scope-.Qrder of the HIRh •Court dil't!ctinR the State Govt. to rehear
a rtvislon pttltlon-R<spondent filed eviction suit before rehearing--
Whether the tuit for eviction maintainable,
The. appellant,' a tenant, was sought to be evicted by Respondent.
She applied to the Distri<:t Magistrate, who was also the Rent Controller
under s .. 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act
1947, for permission to sue the appellant for her eviction and the permission was granted.
As against that order, the appellant went up iii
revision to the State Government.
During the pendency of that proceeding, the State Government passed an order staying the operation of
the permission granted by the Commissioner pending consideration of the
case by the State Government. La•er, the State Government allowed the
revision petition and set aside the premission granted.
Respondent challenged the legality of the order made by the .. State
Govt. before I/le High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. · The
High Court set aside the order of the Government on the ground that
the State Govt. in deciding the revision petition had allowed itself t·o
be inftuenced by irrelevant considerations.
It directed the State Govt.
t·o rehear the appellant's revision application according to law. This order
was passed on February 28, 1967. On the very next day, the respondent
filed a suit for eviction of the appellant. When the revision petition came
up for hearing before the State Govt., the Respondent
submitted
that
in view of the institution of the suit, the State Govt. was not competent
to hear the revision petition and accordingly, the State Govt, dismissed
the petition on the sole ground that the proceeding be'fore it became
infl'l;'ctunus in view of the institution of the civil suit.
The appellant challenged thai order of the State Government by means
of a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court held that the
stay grnnted _by the State Govt. had lapsed when the revision petition was
dispOSCd of.
Therefore, on the institution of the civil suit for. e\iction,
her revision petition before the State Govt. became infructuous.
As
against that order, this appeal. has been brought by special leave. Allowing the appeal, and directing 'the State Govt. to restore and decide the
revision petition according to law.
HELD : The State Government and the High Court were not justified
in dismissing the revision petition as being infructuous because of the
institution of the suit. One of the implications of the order di the High
Court directing the State Government to rehear the revision petition of
the appellant was that the respondent was precluded from filing the
intended suit for eviction till .the State Government heard the r~vision
petition. Otherwise, the direction given by the High Court would remain
unobeyed.
The respondent cannot be permitted 'o obotruct the implellMll!tation of that direction and that too, a direction given at her instance.
~11)1. Ir ~
n()! open to the ~t
te ~ ~ .Wt befo~
992
SUPREME C<:JUR T REPORTS
[1972] 3 S.C.R.
the revision petition was disposed of by the State Government.
The
A
suit filed by the respondent was a premature one. Such a suit did not
bar the State Government from disposing of the revision pet:tion in pur~
•uance of the order made by the H;gh Court. [999 BJ
Shri Bhagwan v. Ramachand, [1965] 3 S.C.R. 218, Bhagwan Das v.
Paras Nath, , 1969] 2 S.C.R. 297 a;:d Mohammad Ismail v. Naney Lal,
rt 9691 3 .S. C.R. 894, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1813 of
1971.
'
Appeal by special leave from the jud
0 ment and decree dated
February 5, 1971 of the Allahabad High Court. in Special Appeal
No. 1116 of 1969.
M. V. Ta.·k1mde and S.S. Shukla, for the appellant.
M. C. Chag/a and Rameshwar Nath, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hegde, J.
though this appeal relates to a comparatively
small maiter, it has exposed several disturbing features.
Hence
it is necessary to set out the facts of the case in some detail.
The appellant is a tenant of the respondent.
She is occupying
one of the premi 0.es belonging to the respondent.
The respondent
is seeking to evict her from the said premises.
For that purpose
she applied to the District Magistrate. Dehradun, who is also the
Rent Controller, under s. 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of
Rent and Eviction Act,_ 1947 (to the hereinafter referred to as the
Act) for permission to sue the appellanv for her eviction.
The
permission asked for was granted by the Rent Controller.
As
against that order, the appellant went up in revision to the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut who affirmed the order of the
District Magistrate.
Thereafter the appellant went up in revision
to the State Government.
During th~ pendency of that proceeding the State Government passed an order of stay which
reads :
"Operation of the permission under s. 3 of the Act
granted by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut
to the opposite party, landlady to tile the suit for the
petitioner's ejectment from the house in question
is
stayed pending consideration of the case by the State
Government."
Later the State Government allowed the revision petition and
set aside the .Permiss.ion granted. , The respondent chall~n~ed the
legalitj 'of: the O'rilet, made by· the State Government 1:1efore the
B
c
D
F
G
"
•'
PRA!IHAWAU v .. PRIIAM KAUR .(Hegde, _J,)
i-U
A High Court of Allahabad in a petition under Art. 226 of the
Constitution. The High Court set aside the order of the Government on the ground that the State Government in deciding the
revision petition had allowed itself to be influenced by irrelevant
considerations. The concluding portion of the order of the High
Court reads :
B
"The petition is allowed.
The order of the ·-State
Government dated 14-6-1966 ( Annexure E to the peti·
tion) is quashed. The State Government is directed to
rehear Smt. Prabhawati Devi's revision under section
7·F of (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act,
according to law. The petitioner shall get costs of this
petition from respondent No. 1."
This order was passed on Februa17 28, 1967. On the very
next day, the respondent filed a suit for eviction of the appellant. _
When the n;vision petition came up for hearing before the State
Government, the respondent submitted before the State Govem0
ment that it was not competent to hear the revision petition in view
of the institution of the suit and for that purpose, it relied on a
decision of the High Court holding that a revision petition pending before the State Government becomes infnlctuous orice a
suit for eviction is filed in pursuance of the permission gi\len by
the Commissioner. The State Government accepted that contention and dismissed the revision petition on the sole ground that the
E proceedi n$ before it became infructuous in view of the institution
ot the civil suit. The appellant challenged _that order by means
of a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court. The High
Court came to the conclusion that the stay granted by the State
Government had lapsed when the revision petition was disposed
F
of and the same did not stand revived when the High Court direct·
ed the State Government to rehear the matter and dispose of the
same according to Jaw.
Consequently, on the institution of the
. civil suit for eviction of the appellant, her revision petition before
the State Government became infructuous. As agamst that order,
. this appeal has been brought by special leave.
·
G
Before proceeding to discuss the points arising for decision, ft
will be convenient to read the relevant provisions of the Act.
Though the Act purports to be a temporary measure, It hu
continued to be in force from 1947. This Is but a smlll anomaly
compared with the difficulties created. by some of ita. provisions.
Now let us have a look at thoie provisions. They read :
ll
"Restrictions on eviction.-
. (I) Subject to any order passed under sub-
!lilctiOJ1_(3 ), iio suit·shall, without the permissiQ11 of the
994
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1972] 3 S.C.R.
District Magistrate be filed in any civil court against a
tenant for his eviction from any accommodation, except
on one or more of the following grounds :
(a) that the tenant is in arrears OL rent for more
than three months and has failed to pay the same
to the landlord within one month of the service
upon him of notice of demand;
(b) that the t~nant has wilfully caused or permitted
to be caused suhstantiul damage to the accom·
modation;
(c) that the tenant has, without the p.ermission in
writing of the landlord, made or permitted to he
made any such construction as, in the opinion
of the court, has materially altered the accom·
modation or is likely substantially to dimi;h its
value;
(d) that the tenant has created a nuisance or has
done any act which is inconsistent with the. pur·
pose for which h·~ was admitted to the tenancy
of the accommodntion, or which is
likely
to
affect adversely and substar.tially the landlord's
interest therein;
( e) that the tenant has on or after the I st day of
October, 1946, sub.·let the whole or any portion
of the accommodntion without the permission of
the landlord;
(f) that the tenant has renounced this character as
such or denied the title of the landlord and the
A
B
c
D
E
latter has not waived his right or condoned the
F
conduct of the tenant;
(g) that the tenant was, allowed to occupy the
accommodation as a oart of his contract of
employment under the landlord and his employment has been determined.
Exp/anation.-For the purposes of sub-section (e)
lodging a person in a hotel or a lodging house shall not
be deemed to be subletting.
2. Where any application has been made to the
District Magistrate for permission to sue a tenant for
eviction from any accommodation and the District
Magistrate grants c;>r refuses to grant the permi~sion, the
~i'tY ,·a1'1'1e~ ·by his order. may withln.<10 clays ftW1
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
' B
PRABl!AWATI V. PRITAM .KAUR (tf6gde,'J,)
~6
the date on which the order is communicated to him
apply to the Commissioner to. revise the order.
3. The Commissioner shall hear the application made
under sub-section ( 2), as far as may be, within six
weeks from the date of making it, and he may, if he is
not satisfied as to the correctness, legality or propriety
of the order passed by the District Magistrate' or as to
the regularity of proceedings held before him, alter or
reverse his order or make such other order as may be
just and proper.
4. The order of the Commissioner under sub-section
( 3) shall, ·subject to any order passed by the State
Government under section 7-F be fin~!."
The only other relevant section for our present purpose u
s. 7-F which says :
/ ·
"Power of State Government-The State Government may call for the record of any case granting or
.refusing to grant permiflsion for the filing of a suit for
eviction referred to in section 3 or requiring any accOl!l·
modation to be let or not to be let to any person under
section 7 or directing a person to vacate any accom!llOdation under section 7 -A and may make such order as
appears to it necessary for the ends of justice."
.
Providing against unlawful eviction is undoubtodly a laudable
object. It is necessary in social interest that improper eviction
of tenanats should be prohibited.
Various States have enacted
laws prohibiting the landlords from evicting . their tenants except
on grounds mentioned in those laws.
The implementation of
those measures is left in the handiifof either regular courts or
regularly constituted tribunals who are the principal repositories
of the judicial power of the State and not with execuive authorities
burdened with other duties.
But strangely enough under the Act
two rounds of litigations are provided for.
A ·landlord sebkillg
to evict a tenant must first go to the District Magistrate fer pet·
mission.
As against the order of the District
Ma~strate the
aggrieved party can go up i11 revision to the Commiss1oncr. The
order of the Commissioner, subject to any order .passed by the
State Government under section 7-F of the Act, is final.
Section
7-F empowers the State. Government to revise the order of ·the
order of the Commissioner at any time it pleases. There Is no
time limit for exercising that power.
This .entire Iona drawn out
process is only for the purpose .of decidini.wh~ther tho perminlon
should:be granted to !he landlord to sueibls wn0n(f91' -.i1G11Dent.
..
'SUPll!ME · OOlJRT REPORTS
· [1!172] 3 s.c.a.
If the permission sought is granted then starts· another round of A
litigation from one court to another.
The principal function of
courts and tribunals is to settle the dispute between the parties and
thereby give a quietus te the .social frictions generated by the un- .
resolved disputes.
As long as a litigatiort )asts, the tension coli·
tinues and useful energies will be wasted. . 'fhis is not all.
Every
litigation means heavy financjal burden.to the.parties.
The merryll
go-round of litigation provided by the Act instead of helping the
tenants who ordinarily belong to the weaker sections·of the society
is likely to result in their ruination. These problems are for the
legislatures to consider.
The power conferred on the District Magistrate, the Commissioner an\! the State Government has been .held to be a judicial C
power by this Court-see Shri Bhagwan and anr. v. Ramachand
and anr. (1).
Therefore let us see how that power is required to
be exercised.
Neither s. 3 nor s. 7;p prescribes under what cir·
cwilstances the pemiission asked for should be granted and on
what grounds the same can be refused.
Prima facie the power
conferred on the authorities under ss. 3 and 7-F has no limits. It ·r..
is neither controlled nor guided.
The validity of that p0wer cannot be and was not challenged in these proceedings.
Hence we
~hall not go into it. If one desires to know how and to what
extent the power conferred on the. authorities under those rrovisions can be misused, one has only to look to the· facts
I)
this
case..
·
E
The appellant filed the revision petition before the State Gov~
enunent on April 2, 1965.
On the same day she sent a.copy of
ihat petition alongwith an application to the Minlster.foYlrrigation
whO had nothing to do with the revision petition in question as
revision petitions under s. 7-F were being dealt with by the Ministty .of Civil Supplies.
It is reasonable to inf~r that she.m)lst have
done so because either she or. some of her fnends or relations had
F
SOllle influence with that Minister.
Otherwise there was no pui'·
Pose in sending a copy of. the r~vision petition to ·the Ii:rigation
Mil)ister.
The Irrigation Minister sent the copy received by him
to the Secretary, Civil Supplies after making the following .note
thereon;
· · "Pl. look into it.
So much Is In mY knowledge that
occupants are vetl very old tenant . of this shop.
l
.hope .•. proper view will be taken of the dispute."
G
·Thereafter some official in the Secretariat prepared a detailed note
•
giving the history of the case.
That office note concluded thus :
~l
"In this connection observations of Minister for
·. · ·Irrigation and Power on serial No. 12 and orders of J.S.
1rfi§~513 s-:-'c:-'R.. 21s.
·
··
PRABHAWATI \I. PRITAM KAUR (Hegde, J.)
997
A
at the bottom thereon may also please be seen, submitted. , J(.R may please see for orders."
B
In due course the Government allowed the revision petition. That
order has its own special features.
It reads :
"GOYERMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH
RENT CONTROL DEPARTMENT
No. 1696/E-1(10)II965,
Dated Lucknow, June 14, 1966.
ORDER
C
Subject : Smt. Prabhawati versus Dr. Pritam Kaur.
D
E
F
G
regarding a portion of premises No. 11 Rarnpur Mandi Road, Debra Dun.
With reference to her petition dated April 2, 196.5.
Smt. Prabhawati is informed that after a careful
examination of the records of the case and consideration of the version of the opposite party and also in
view of other facts relevant to the case, it appears
expedient in the ends of justice that the petitioner should
not be dispossessed from the disputed premises.
Therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under
Section 7-F of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent
and Eviction Act, 194 7, the Governor is please(! to _
revoke the permission under section 3 of the said Act
granted by the Rent Control
and
Eviction Officer
Debra Dun and confirmed by the Commissioner, Meerut
Division, Meerut, vlde his orders dated March 30,
1965, passed in revision No. 13, to file a civil suit of
ejectment . against the petitioner from the premises in
dispute.
Sd - B. N. Chaturvedi
Anu Sachiv.''
One would search this order in vain for the reason that persuaded the State Government to allow the revision petition. Not
a single reason is given for setting aside the order of the Commls-·
~ioner. But if one delves into the records of the Government as
~
High Court of Allaha\>ad did, one is left with a feeling that the
note of the Irrigation Minister· must have weighed heavily on the
H concerned authority. Our ellperience in dealing with litigations
of this type does not embolden us to say. that what happened in
this case is a rare ellception to the rule;
"•
998
SUPR5'4B GOUR}' lllil10R'lll
[i.972] 3 S.C.R.
Ii!llilY also be noted that when tjle re~OJJ.p,etition was pend-
·"-
ing before t~e State Government, some i>Q$y bOdy by . name
Ramesh Pun wrote a letter to the Minister for Fciod and Civil
Sup~ly on May 16, 1966 recommending the case of the appellant.
In his letter he set forth his qualifications as a "'social worker aad
a ligh~r. for freedom .since childhood''. T)iat letter appears to
have found a resPeCtable place in .the records· qf the case. One
11:
can only regret for this sorry state of alfaitS. · ·
The appellant has found a match in the res]:>oni!Cnt.
It is'
interosting to note how the respondent cleverly queered the pitch
against the appellant.
We h~YF· wlier noticed that it was at her
instance the High Court had quashed the order of the · State
Gov~ent and directei! the State Oove~nt to re)l!l!ll' 1111d dis-
'. ~
pose of tμe revision petition according to Jaw.
Soon after getting
that order, she tried to over-reach tl)at order by filing a· suit' for
eviction the very next day after the High court passed its order.
The High C!>μrt of Allahabad as we!! as th~ O:>urt have held that
a suit validly instituted after obtaining the required permission
under s. 3 ( 1) does not cease to be maintainable because of any
order made by the State Government under s. 7-F during the pen·
dency of the suit-see Bhagw(ln Das v. Paras Noth( 1) and'
Mohamm(ld Ismail v. Nanney Lal('). In a rather desperate bid'
to take some advanta~e from those decisiOns, tho re!!Jioodent ·
appears to have rushed to the Civil court even before the ink on
the I:ligh C<iint's. order had drie4. IJP·
F111vjpg h1stit11~ the suit
she m~nwd to Government what. a~j w jle. r w~s a fait
acco(l!pli; Tue State Oovepup~111111 pienttqne4 eiμ-Jier f~lt that
I
.the r~. yis10. n ~ti\ipn before it be~.Ml!P. illfructμl)Us ~aus~ of the
. :illltitu!i<,lll pf the suit.
l!nfortμMf.~ly ~
~gh COi!~ ~!!~
with tti~t view.
·
·
Mr. Ta~unde, le~med Coun~l for the apl?«'llant
~ended
before us th~t no sooner the Hi~ Court set asiae the order of the
Goveinment ·and directed the State Government to ~
and
dispOsC of the matter accor!fing to law, the inte$1 enler of stay
passl!ll by . t)I~ St Ille. Government stood. revived. In s}lppOtt of
that cont~n!iP!l of ~ts, he h~s placed reliance on the dectSlon of the
Patna High Court m Bilnk1m Chandra and ors. v. Chand/ Prasad(•); the decisions of the Mi1dr;lll ffigil (:q9~ jn Tqvvple Veeraswami "· Pulim Raman1ia and ors.(') ll!l!l Sfll'.qngthn 4iYQllil!I' v ..
F
G
. Muthiah Mooppanar and Rf'S.(') .an!! the ~i~Qll qf,.. ~""~'
High Court in Sushi/a Bali . .Pasi v. G.uest J;,een WUli@Ws 44.(•).
We do not think it is necessary to cOl)S. i\ler th~t CQllte.n..
. ti()!! .P,i. J1'js
appeal. · The principle of law cpnt,ond!ICJ fgr by Mr .. 'fl\l'li:., fl
·" (I) ji9'69j '2. s.c.i\.' 297;
'(2)' [1969) 3!'S.C.R. 894; (3) AIR 19,6 l'lt.f27t.
(4) 1:L.ll. ls, Mad. 721;
(S) 6l, M.L.J. 844;
.
{6) T.L.R. (1949) Vol. J Cal. 177.
PRABHAWATI v. PRITAM KAUR (Hegde, J.)
999
has several facets; but there is no need to go into those facets in A
this appeal. In our opinion this appeal has to succeed on a much
broader ground. No party to a litigation can be permitted to
frustrate the decision rendered by having recourse to trickery. The
true effect of the order made by the High Court in the writ petition
was that the question whether the respondent should be permitted
to tile a suit tor ejectment of the appellant or not must be gone B
into and decided afresh by the State Government.
One of the
unplicati~ns flowing from that order is that the respondent is precluded from filing the intended suit for eviction till the Sta,te
Government decides the revision petition. Otherwise the direction
given by the High Court would remain unobeyed.
The respondent cannot be permitted to obstruct th~ implementation of that c
direction and that to a direction given at her instance.
Consequently it was not open to the respondent to file the suit before the
revision petition was disposed of by the State Government.
In
our opinion, the suit filed by the respondent was a premature one.
Such a suit does not bar the State Government from disposing of
the revision petition in pursuance of the order made by the High
Court. The State Government. was not justified in dismissing the o·
revision petition as being infructuous.
In the resuit this appeal i.s allowed, the order of the High
Court dismissing the writ petition as well as the order of the State
Government dismissing the revision petition are set aside. Further
the State Government is directed to restore the said revision and E
dispose of the same according to law. 'This, has been a long
drawn out litigation.
Hence it is necessary fell' us to direct the
State Oovernmeat to dispose of the revision petition within four
months frpm the date of the receipt of this order. Meanwhile it
is open to the respondent to move the court in' which she has filed
the civil suit to stay further proceedings. In the circumstances of
F
the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs both in the
High Court as well as in this Court.
s.c.
A />f'eal allowed.