# PURSHOTTAM DAS v. SMT. RAJ MANI DEVI

- **Citation:** [1969] 2 S.C.R. 576
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1966-04-28
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1449 of 1966
- **Bench:** S~ M. S!Kr!, R. S. Bachawat
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/purshottam-das-v-smt-raj-mani-devi-4568
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

B
"'
, .
U.P. (Temp.) Control of Rrnt and Eviction Act 1947,
;s. 3
""f•
and 7F-Rent Control Officer permitted institution of suit for ejectmentSuit filed-Con1niissioner revokes pennission-State Governnient
allo1vs
filing of suit-Defence for ejectment passed--Efject.
The respondent-landlord obtained permission to institute a suit from
the Rent Control & Eviction Officer under s. 3 ( 1) of the U.P. (Temp.)
Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, for ejecting from his house the
appellant-tenant.
The respondent
filed a suit for eviction against
the
appellant.
Later the Commissioner acting under s. 3(3) revoked the permission.
But the State Government on March 30,
1963 acting under
s. 7F s~t aside the Commissioner's order and gave leave to the respondent
.to file the suit after 4 months of the date of the order i.e., July 30, 1963.
On July 11, 1963 the trial court decreed the suit. The appellant filed an
appeal. The appellate court set aside the trial courf's decree and remanded
the suit for fresh trial. On remand, the trial court decreed the suit on
March 2, 1964 holding that the permission granted by the State Government became effective from July 30, 1963 and as the suit wa. still pending a decree could be passed in the suit. This decision was affirmed by the
first appellate court, and also by the High Court. Dismissing the appeal
this Court,
c
D
HELD : If the State Government acting under s. 7F sets aside
the
E
order of tP.e Commissioner revoking the
permission.
the order
under
s. 3 ( 1) granting permission
is revived.
The result is that there is an
effective permission to institute the suit under s. 3 ( l) and the suit
is
validity instituted. [578 DJ
The direction of the State Government to file the suit after four
month1 of che order meant that the permission under s. 3 (1) would become effective on the expiry of 4 months i.e. from July 30, 1963.
The
F
Jandlord had thus an effective permission to institute
the
suit
under
s. 3 (I) from July 30, 1963. The decree in the suit was passed on March
2, 1964. On that date the landlord had a valid permission to institute
the suit. The suit was therefore maintainable. [578 HJ
Bhagwan Das v. Paras Nath, [1969] 2 S.C.R. ·297, distinguished.

## Text

576
PURSHOTTAM DAS
v.
SMT. RAJ MANI DEVI
(Jctober 30, 1968
A.
[S~ M. S!KR! AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.]
B
"'
, .
U.P. (Temp.) Control of Rrnt and Eviction Act 1947,
;s. 3
""f•
and 7F-Rent Control Officer permitted institution of suit for ejectmentSuit filed-Con1niissioner revokes pennission-State Governnient
allo1vs
filing of suit-Defence for ejectment passed--Efject.
The respondent-landlord obtained permission to institute a suit from
the Rent Control & Eviction Officer under s. 3 ( 1) of the U.P. (Temp.)
Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, for ejecting from his house the
appellant-tenant.
The respondent
filed a suit for eviction against
the
appellant.
Later the Commissioner acting under s. 3(3) revoked the permission.
But the State Government on March 30,
1963 acting under
s. 7F s~t aside the Commissioner's order and gave leave to the respondent
.to file the suit after 4 months of the date of the order i.e., July 30, 1963.
On July 11, 1963 the trial court decreed the suit. The appellant filed an
appeal. The appellate court set aside the trial courf's decree and remanded
the suit for fresh trial. On remand, the trial court decreed the suit on
March 2, 1964 holding that the permission granted by the State Government became effective from July 30, 1963 and as the suit wa. still pending a decree could be passed in the suit. This decision was affirmed by the
first appellate court, and also by the High Court. Dismissing the appeal
this Court,
c
D
HELD : If the State Government acting under s. 7F sets aside
the
E
order of tP.e Commissioner revoking the
permission.
the order
under
s. 3 ( 1) granting permission
is revived.
The result is that there is an
effective permission to institute the suit under s. 3 ( l) and the suit
is
validity instituted. [578 DJ
The direction of the State Government to file the suit after four
month1 of che order meant that the permission under s. 3 (1) would become effective on the expiry of 4 months i.e. from July 30, 1963.
The
F
Jandlord had thus an effective permission to institute
the
suit
under
s. 3 (I) from July 30, 1963. The decree in the suit was passed on March
2, 1964. On that date the landlord had a valid permission to institute
the suit. The suit was therefore maintainable. [578 HJ
Bhagwan Das v. Paras Nath, [1969] 2 S.C.R. ·297, distinguished.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1449 of
1966.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated
April 28, 1966 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal
No. 289 of 1965.
G ~
•
M . .K. Ramamurthi, Shyamala Pappu and Vineet .Kumar, for
the appdlalllt.
H . ,;...
B. C. Misra, 0. Prakash, R. K. Mathur and M. V. Goswami,
for the respondent.
•
}
' •
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
PURSHOTTAM v. RAJ MANI (Bachawat, J.)
577
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Bachawat, J. The appellant is the tenant and the respondent
is the landlord of House No. SB, Old 122 Maya Mirganj, Allahabad. The appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment by the landlord against the tenant from the house.
On October 11, 1961,
the landlord obtained permission to institute the suit from the
Rent Control and Eviction Officer under s. 3(1) of the U.P.
(Temp.) Control of Rent aind Eviction Act, 1947. On October
14, 1961 the landlord instituted the present suit for eviction
against the tenant. On March 27, 1962 the Commissioner
Allahabad Division acting under s. 3 (3) revoked the permission
to institute the suit.
On March 30, 1963 the State Government
acting under s. 7F set aside the Commissioner's order and gave
leave to the landlord to file the suit with effect from July 30,
1963. On July 11, 1963 the Trial Court decreed the suit. The
tenant filed an appeal against the decree. On November 4, 1963
the appellate court set aside the decree and remanded the suit for
fresh trial. After the suit went back on remand the Trial Court
decreed the suit on March 2, 1964. The Trial Court held that
the permission granted by the State Government became effective from July 30, 1963 and as the suit was still pending a decree
could be passed in the suit.
An appeal against the decree was
dismissed on November 28, 1964. A second appeal was dismissed by the High Court on April 28, 1966. The present appeal
has been filed by the tenant after obtaining special leave. The
sole question in the appeal is whether in the circumstances there
was a valid permission to institute the suit under s. 3 ( 1).
In Bhagwan Das v. Paras Nath(') this Court held that a suit
validly instituted after obtaining permission of the Commissioner
under s. 3 ( 3) did not become incompetent if the State Government acting under s. 7F revoked the permission after the institution of the suit. In that case the District Magistrate refuSF.d to
give permission under s. 3 (1) to institute the suit.
The Commissioner acting under s. 3 (3) set aside the order and granted
permission to institute the suit.
The suit was decreed by the
Trial Court on November 2, 1960. The tenant filed an appeal
against the decree.
During the pendency of the appeal the State
Government acting under s. 7F revoked the permission granted
by the Commissioner. The Court held that though the order
under s. 3 (3) was subject to an order under s. 7F the Government's power under s. 7F to revoke the permission granted by
the Commissioner became exhausted once the suit was validly
institnted.
In support of his contention that the present suit is not maintainable, the appellant relies on the following observations of
Hegde, J. :-
(I) [1969] 2 S.C.R. 297.
578
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969} 2 S.C.R.
"When the Commissioner sets
aside the order
passed by the District Magistrate granting permission
to file a suit for ejecting a tenant, the order of the
Commissioner prevails. If he cancels the permission
granted by the District Magistrate there is no effective
permission left and the suit instituted by the plaintiff
without awaiting his decision must be treated as one
filed without any valid permission by the District Magistrate."
Having regard to these observations the present suit though
validly instituted after obtaining the permission under s.
3 ( l)
became incompetent when the permission was revoked by
the
Commissioner under s. 3(3). But the order under s. 3(3) itself was set aside by the State Government under s. 7F during
the pendency of the suit.
The question is what is the effect of
this order under s. 7F.
Now, s. 3(4) provides that the order
of the Commissioner under s. 3 ( 3) subject to an order passed
by the State Government under s. 7F. If the State Government
acting under s. 7F sets aside the order of the Commissioner revoking the permission, the order under s. 3 ( 1) granting permission
is revived.
The result is that there is an effective permission to
institute the suit under s. 3 ( 1) and the suit is validly instituted.
In Bhagwan Das's Case(')
the suit was validly instituted after obtaining permission from the Commissioner under
s. 3 (3). The State Government could not render such a suit
incompetent by any order under s. 7F. In the present case the
suit was validly instituted after obtaining permission from
the
Rent Control and Eviction Officer under s. 3 ( 1). The effect of
the order of the Commissioner revoking the permission was that
the suit became incompetent.
The State
Government acting
under s. 7F had power to revise and set aside the Commissioner's
order and restore the permission granted under s. 3 ( 1) so as to
make the suit competent.
The order of the State Government after stating that in the
interest of justice the house should be available to the landlord
for his use, set aside the Commissioner's order under s. 3 ( 3).
The result was that the order of the Rent Control and Eviction
Officer passed under s. 3 ( 1) stood restored. The further direction in the order that the landlord "is advised to file a suit for
eviction from the house in dispute against the opposite party in
a civil court under s. 3 of the Act, which will be applicable four
months after the date of the order" really means that the penuission under s. 3 ( 1) would become effective on the expiry of 4
months. The landlord had thus an effective permission to institute the suit under s. 3 ( 1) on the expiry of four months from
March 30, 1963, that is to say, as from July 30, 1963. The
(1) [1969] 2 S.C.R. 297.
c
D
E
{
'
G
'
H
•
PURSHOTTAM v. RAJ MANI (Bachawat, J.)
579
A decree in the suit was passed on March 2, 1964.
O~ that date the
.--.(
landlord had a valid permission to institute the suit. The 5uit
was therefore maintainable.
B
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
There will no order
as to costs.
Y. P.
Appeal dismissed •