Skip to content


JamiluddIn Khan Vs. Niaz Ahmad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 1393 of 1963
Judge
Reported inAIR1964All393
ActsTransfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 106; Uttar Pradesh (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 - Sections 3(1) and 3(3)
AppellantJamiluddIn Khan
RespondentNiaz Ahmad
Advocates:N.D. Ojha, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
(i) tenancy - lease - section 106 of transfer of property act, 1882 - notice for rent - waiver of notice by landlord - acceptance of rent after expiration of contractual tenancy - no new contractual tenancy. (ii) tenancy - revision - sections 3(1) and 3(3) of u. p. (temporary) control of rent and eviction act, 1947 - landlord maintained a suit for ejectment on the basis of an order passed by the commissioner being reversion of the magistrate's order - held a commissioner's order is shall be followed. - .....the only other question raised in this second appeal was whether the landlord could maintain the suit for ejectment on the basis of the permission granted for the ejectment of the appellant, by the commissioner. section 3 (1) of the u. p. control of rent and eviction act, iii of 1947, prohibits the filing of a suit for the ejectment of a tenant except with the permission of the district magistrate on any one of the grounds mentioned in clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (1) of section 3; aforesaid. in this particular case the district magistrate refused the respondent permission for filing a suit for the ejectment of the appellant. the respondent, therefore, moved an application-before the commissioner under sub-section (2) of section 3. this application was allowed and permission was.....
Judgment:

S.D. Singh, J.

1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of the defendant-appellant. The suit was decreed in full by the trial Court and the decree was affirmed by the lower appellate Court. The appellant challenges the decree only to the extent it relates to his ejectment.

2. The first question raised by the appellant was about waiver of the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The notice was served on the appellant on 5th April. But the landlord accepted rent from the appellant for the period 1st April, 1959, to 31st October, 1959, on 20th November, 1959. The contention, therefore, was that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was waived by the land-lord when he accepted rent for the aforesaid period. Ganga Dutt Murarka v. Kartik Chandra Das AIR 1961 SC 1067 is, however, complete answer to this contention. It has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that where a contractual tenancy to which the rent control legislation applies has expired by afflux of time or by determination by notice to quit and the tenant continues in possession of the premises, acceptance of rent from the tenant by the landlord after the expiration or determination of the contractual tenancy will not afford ground for holding that the landlord has assented to a new contractual tenancy.

3. The only other question raised in this second appeal was whether the landlord could maintain the suit for ejectment on the basis of the permission granted for the ejectment of the appellant, by the Commissioner. Section 3 (1) of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act, III of 1947, prohibits the filing of a suit for the ejectment of a tenant except with the permission of the District Magistrate on any one of the grounds mentioned in Clauses (a) to (g) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3; aforesaid. In this particular case the District Magistrate refused the respondent permission for filing a suit for the ejectment of the appellant. The respondent, therefore, moved an application-before the Commissioner under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. This application was allowed and permission was granted to the respondent by the Commissioner under Sub-section (3) of Section 3. Sub-section (1) permits a suit being filed with the permission of the District Magistrate and the contention of the appellant, therefore, was that it is only District Magistrate's permission which can entitle a landlord to file a suit for the ejectment of the tenant and not the permission granted by the Commissioner.

4. Sub-section (1) of Section 3, however, begins with the words 'subject to any order passed under Sub-section (3)', which means that the provision relating to the permission of the District-Magistrate is to be read subject to the order which may be passed by the Commissioner under Sub-section (3). Sub-section (2) provides for an application in revision against the order of the District Magistrate not only in cases where permission is granted by the District Magistrate, but also in cases where permission is refused by him. When a landlord may go in revision to the Commissioner against an order of the District Magistrate, refusing to grant him. permission as aforesaid and when that revision may even be allowed and the permission may be granted by the Commissioner for the filing of the suit it appears to me difficult to hold that the intention of the Legislature wasthat a suit for the ejectment of a tenant could bedecreed only with the permission of the District Magistrate and not with the permission of the Commissioner given under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act. If the Legislature intended that it is only the District Magistrate with whose permission a landlord can file the suit and not that of the Commissioner, there was no sense in making the provision for the filing of an application in revision against the order of the District Magistrate refusing to grant permission. In that case the Legislature should have provided for revision only in those cases in which the District Magistrate grants permission, and not in cases where he does not. To one, therefore, it seems that a reading of theopening words of Sub-section (1) and Sub-sections (2) and (3) together makes it abanduntly clearthat a suit for the ejectment of a tenant may be filed not only with the permission of the District Magistrate, but even with that of the Commissioner.

5. Reference was made by the learned counsel for the appellant to Dwarka Nath Munshi v.Gayatri Devi, 1961 All LJ 353 in which different views were expressed by Desai, J., (as he then was) and Mithan Lal, J. That is, however, a casebased on different facts. In that case the District Magistrate granted permission for the ejectment ofthe tenant and a suit for the purpose was even filed thereafter. The tenant went up in revision to the Commissioner who cancelled the permission. But the suit had already been filed. What cameup for decision in Dwarka Nath Munshi's case, 1961 All LJ 353 therefore, was whether the cancellation of the permission by the Commissionercould operate retrospectively and invalidate thefiling of the suit, or if it did not affect the maintainability of the suit, once it was filed with thepermission of the District Magistrate. Desai, J., thought that the cancellation had no effect andthe suit having once been filed with the permission of the District Magistrate could be continuedeven though the permission might have been cancelled by the Commissioner. Mithan Lal, J., held that the permission granted to the landlord, beingsubject to the order passed under Sub-section (3), was not available to the landlord if the same wassubsequently cancelled by the Commissioner, and that even though the suit may have been filedbefore the permission was cancelled, the suit was not entertainable. The question, therefore, whicharose for decision in that case was altogether different from the question which arises in the present second appeal.

6. On page 359 Desai, J., has observed that he considered the use of the words 'subject toany order passed under Sub-section (3)' in Subsection (1) of Section 3 meaningless. With great respect, however, I find it difficult to agree to that view. It is difficult to see how these words can be read either as meaningless or redundant. The order which a District Magistrate may pass under Sub-section (1) has been specifically made subject to the order which may be passed by the Commissioner under Sub-section (3). These words have, therefore, significance of their own. They make the order of the District Magistrate subject to the order which the Commissioner may pass in revision under Sub-section (3). If a revision has been filed, it is the order of the Commissioner which would prevail as against the order of the District Magistrate passed under Sub-section (1).

7. The position may be examined from another point of view. Even if it be supposed that it is only the District Magistrate who can permit the filing of a suit the permission even if granted by the Commissioner should in law be deemed to be the permission by the District Magistrate. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 provides that the Commissioner may alter or reverse the order of the District Magistrate and make such other order as may be just and proper. If the Commissioner reverses the order of the District Magistrate he substitutes his own order for that of the District Magistrate and after the order of the District Magistrate is reversed, the order passed by the Commissioner gets substituted for the order passed by the District Magistrate and, therefore, becomes the order of the District Magistrate himself, of course as modified by the Commissioner in revision.

8. In my opinion, therefore, the Commissioner had jurisdiction to permit the ejectment of a tenant and the order passed by him is as effective for the ejectment of the tenant as that of the District Magistrate under Sub-section (1). The Courts below were, therefore, right in entertaining the suit for the ejectment of the defendant-appellant.

9. The appeal has no force and is consequently dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //