# RAMJI DAS & ORS v. TRILOK CHAND ETC

- **Citation:** [1970] 3 S.C.R. 815
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1970-02-25
- **Bench:** J. C. Shah, K. S. Hegde, A. N. Grover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ramji-das-ors-v-trilok-chand-etc-4969
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction A.cl (U.P. of 1947),
s. 3-Permission granted by the Rent Control
and· Eviction OfjicerValidity if can be challenged in suit for eviction.
The appellant-landlord applied to the Rent Control & Eviction Officer
under s. 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act, 1947
for permission to file a suit for a decree in ejectment against the ~respon
dent-tenant. The officer granted the permission, holding that the need of
the appellant to occupy the premises was bona fide and genuine. This
order was confirmed in a ·revision application by the Additional Commissioner. The appellant then terminated the tenancy by notice and filed
suits in the Civil Court for ejectment and arrears of rent The trial court
decreed the suits, which were confirmed by the appellate court. But in
second appeal, the High Court observed that it was incumbent on the
Rent Control and Eviction Officer to consider the needs of the tenant,
and since he refused to consider the tenant'!I needs the permission
was
invalid, and the appellant's suits were liable to be diomissed. In appeal,
this Court,
HELD : The decision of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was
not in the suits filed by the appellant open to objection.
The proceeding under s. 3(2) before the District Magistrate or before
the Rent Control & Eviction Officer, who exercioes his powers as delegated
under the Act, and before the Commissioner under s. 3(3) of the U.P.
(Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act are
quasi-judicial in
character. By sub-section ( 4) of s. 3 of the Act the decision of the Commissioner under suf>.s. (3) of s. 3, subject to any order passed by the State
Government under s. 7-F of the Act, is declared final.
The respondent
did not prefer any petition before the State Government under s. 7-F of
the Act and on that account the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, exercising powers of the
Commissioner under s. 3 ( 3), became
final.
Finality df the order declared by s. 3 ( 4) and s. 16 of the Act does
not exclude the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution to issue
an appropriate writ quashing the order. But subject to interference by the
High Court, the decision must be deemed final and is not liable to be
cballen.ged in any collateral proceeding. [817 B-D]
Even granting that the Additional Commissioner reached a wrong conclusion, the decision- was not without jurisdiction and the only avenue for
correction is the one provided by the Act, i.e. by approaching the State
Goverment under s. 7-F. [817 HJ
Asa Singh v. B. D. Sanwa/ & Ors. AJ.R. 1969 All. 474, held inapplicable.
CIVIL APPELLATE f!JRI$1)!CT!ON : Civil Appeals Nos. 1463
and 1464 of 1969
816
SUP&EME COURT REPORTS
[ 1970] 3 S.C.R.
Appeals by special leave from .the judgment and order dated
January 31, 1969 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeals
Nos. 1197 and 1198 of 1967.
M. C. Setalvad, P. Parameswara Rao, K. C. Dua and S. M.
Grover, for the appellants (in 'eoth the appeals).
J. P. Goyal and M. V. Goswami, for the respondents (in both
the appeals).

## Text

..
8
c
0
E
F
G
H
815
RAMJI DAS & ORS.
v.
TRILOK CHAND ETC.
February 25, 1970
[J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J
U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction A.cl (U.P. of 1947),
s. 3-Permission granted by the Rent Control
and· Eviction OfjicerValidity if can be challenged in suit for eviction.
The appellant-landlord applied to the Rent Control & Eviction Officer
under s. 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act, 1947
for permission to file a suit for a decree in ejectment against the ~respon
dent-tenant. The officer granted the permission, holding that the need of
the appellant to occupy the premises was bona fide and genuine. This
order was confirmed in a ·revision application by the Additional Commissioner. The appellant then terminated the tenancy by notice and filed
suits in the Civil Court for ejectment and arrears of rent The trial court
decreed the suits, which were confirmed by the appellate court. But in
second appeal, the High Court observed that it was incumbent on the
Rent Control and Eviction Officer to consider the needs of the tenant,
and since he refused to consider the tenant'!I needs the permission
was
invalid, and the appellant's suits were liable to be diomissed. In appeal,
this Court,
HELD : The decision of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was
not in the suits filed by the appellant open to objection.
The proceeding under s. 3(2) before the District Magistrate or before
the Rent Control & Eviction Officer, who exercioes his powers as delegated
under the Act, and before the Commissioner under s. 3(3) of the U.P.
(Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act are
quasi-judicial in
character. By sub-section ( 4) of s. 3 of the Act the decision of the Commissioner under suf>.s. (3) of s. 3, subject to any order passed by the State
Government under s. 7-F of the Act, is declared final.
The respondent
did not prefer any petition before the State Government under s. 7-F of
the Act and on that account the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, exercising powers of the
Commissioner under s. 3 ( 3), became
final.
Finality df the order declared by s. 3 ( 4) and s. 16 of the Act does
not exclude the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution to issue
an appropriate writ quashing the order. But subject to interference by the
High Court, the decision must be deemed final and is not liable to be
cballen.ged in any collateral proceeding. [817 B-D]
Even granting that the Additional Commissioner reached a wrong conclusion, the decision- was not without jurisdiction and the only avenue for
correction is the one provided by the Act, i.e. by approaching the State
Goverment under s. 7-F. [817 HJ
Asa Singh v. B. D. Sanwa/ & Ors. AJ.R. 1969 All. 474, held inapplicable.
CIVIL APPELLATE f!JRI$1)!CT!ON : Civil Appeals Nos. 1463
and 1464 of 1969
816
SUP&EME COURT REPORTS
[ 1970] 3 S.C.R.
Appeals by special leave from .the judgment and order dated
January 31, 1969 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeals
Nos. 1197 and 1198 of 1967.
M. C. Setalvad, P. Parameswara Rao, K. C. Dua and S. M.
Grover, for the appellants (in 'eoth the appeals).
J. P. Goyal and M. V. Goswami, for the respondents (in both
the appeals).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shah, J.
A common question arises in these two appeals, and
we will therefore dispose it of by this common judgment.
The appellant is the owner of a house at Shamli in District
Muzaffarnagar in U.P., and the respondent is the tenant of that
house.
The appellant applied to the Re.nt Control and Eviction
Officer under s. 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and
Eviction Act, 1947, for permission to file a suit for a decree in ejectment against the respondent. By order dated June 4, 1965, that
Olllcer granted the permission, holding that the need of the appellant "to occupy the premises was bona fide and genuine". This
order was confirmed in a revision application by the Additional
Commissioner. The appellant then terminated the tenancy of the
respondent in respect of the premises by a notice as required by
B
c
D
law and filed two suits in the Court of the Munsif, Kairana, for
ejectment and for payment of arrears of rent. The Trial Court a
decreed the suits holding that the permission granted by the Rent
Control and Eviction Officer was with "jurisdiction and was not
mala fide".
The decrees were confirmed in appeal to the District
Court at Muzaffarnagar, But second appeals filed by the respondent before the High Court of Allahabad were allowed and the
appellant's suits were dismissed. ,The High Court observed that
F
the only question argued before the Court related to the invalidity
of the permission granted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer.
The High Court further observed that since a Full Bench judgment
of the Court had held in Asa Singh v. B. D. Sanwal and Others(')
that "while granting permission under s. 3 of the U.P. (Temporary)
Control of Rent and Eviction Act the District Magistrate is bound
to consider also the need of the tenant for the accommodation, if
such a case is set up by him", and it was incumbent on the Rent
Control and Eviction Officer to consider "the needs of the tenant"
·. before ma.king the order sanctioning institution of a suit in ejectment, and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer having "refused to
«;onsider the needs of the tenant the permission granted by the Rent
Control and Eviction Officer cannot l:?e said to be valid permission" ..
Accordingly the High Court allowed the appeals and dismissed
(I) A.I.R. 1969 All. 474.
G
H
.
•
A
RAMJI DAS V. TRILOK CHAND (Shah, J.)
SIT
the appellant's suits. With special leave, these two appeals are pre--
ferred;
- The proceeding before the District Magistrate under s. 3 ( 2)
and before the Commissioner under s. 3(3) of the U.P. (Temporary)'
Control of Rent and Eviction Act are quasi-judicial in character.
B
Bys. 3(4) of the Act the decision of the Commissioner under sub-s.
(3) of s. 3; subject to any order passed by the State Government·
under s. 7-F of the Act, is declared final. The respondent did not
prefer any petition before the State Government under s. 7-F of
the Act' and on that account the order passed by· the Additional
Commissioner, exercising powers of the Commissioner under s.
c
3(3), became final. Section 16 of the Act provides that no order
made under the Act by the State< Government or the District Magis-·
trate shall be called in question in any Court. It is true that the
finality of the order d(!clared by s. 3 ( 4) and s. 16 will not exclude
the jurisdiction of the High Court in exercise of the jurisdiction
under Art. 226 of the Constitution to issue an appropriate writ quashing the order. But subject to inteference by the High Court, the
D
decision must be deemed final and is not liable to be challenged in
any collateral proceeding.
E
F
G
H
In our view, the High Court was in error in holding that the
decision of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was, in the suits
filed by the appellant, open to the objection that the Officer did not
consider the "needs of the tenant". The Rent Control and Eviction
Offic~r had jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter. Even if we
assume that he committed an error in the exercise of his jurisdiction,
the error could be corrected only in a proceeding under s. 7-F of
the Act by approaching the State Government and by way of a
writ petition to the High Court, but the order made by the Rent
Control and Eviction Officer and confirmed by the Additional
Commissioner could not be challenged in the suit.
Mr. Goyal appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that
the validity of an order which has been made by the Rent Control
and Eviction Officer which is contrary to the rules of natural justice, may be challenged in the suit. Reliance in that behalf was.
placed upon Shri Bhagwan and Anr. v. Ram Chand & Anr.(1).
But in reaching an erroneous conclusion the Rent Control and
Eviction Officer does not act in a manner contrary to the rules of
natural justice. The Rem:t Control and Eviction Officer had jurisdiction to decide the case.
Granting that he reached a wrong
conclusion, the decision was not without jurisdiction and the only
avenue for cotrection is the one provided by the Act, i.e., by
approaching the State Government under s. 7-F. If the State,
en [t96SJ 3 s.c.R: 21s
818
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 3 S.CJl.
Government was not moved, the order became final and was not
A
liable to be challenged in the suits filed by the appellant.
The decision of the AlJahabad High Court in Asa Singh's
case(') has no application, for it was reached in a case in which
a special appeal was filed in a proceeding arising out of a writ petition. It was apparently not a case in which the validity of the perB
mission given by the authority exercising power under s. 3 of the
Act was sought to be challenged in a suit instituted by the landlord.
We need express no opinion on the question whether the High
Court was right in talcing the view it has done in Asa Singh's
case(').
The appeals are therefore allowed and the decree passed by
C
the High Court is set aside and the decree of the District Court is
confirmed. There will be no order as to costs in this Court.
Y.P.
Appeals allowed,
(I) A.J.R. 1969 All. 474.
-