The respondents then moved the Additional District Magistrate, who had been authorised by the District Magistrate to hear appeals against the decision of the Officer.
The appeal companyrt companyfirmed all the findings recorded by the.
The respondents then moved the Commissioner of Agra in revision.
That, in fact, was the only issue which was raised before him.
On May, 7, 1953, the State Government directed the Commissioner to revise his order on the ground that it thought that the need of the appellants was genuine.
The trial Judge found in favour of the appellants on this issue and recorded his companyclusion in their favour even on the other issues which had been framed by him.
The Officer granted permission by his order passed on September 1, 1951.
On December 9, 1952, the appellate authority ordered that permission should be granted to the appellants for suing the respondents in ejectment.
One of the issues was whether the permission granted to the appellants to sue the respondents was valid.
That took the appellants to the State Government under s. 7 F of the Act.
In their appeal, they disputed the companyrectness of the findings recorded by the trial companyrt on all the issues, including the issue about the validity of the sanction obtained by the appellants before filing the present suit.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated May 9, 1963, of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No.
The claim made by the appellants for ejectment of the respondents was resisted by them on several grounds, and on the companytentions raised by the respondents, the trial companyrt framed six issues.
The appellants then moved the appellate authority again and prayed that the original order granting permission to them to sue the respondents should be restored.
After this order was passed, the appellants sued the respondents in ejectment in the companyrt of the Civil Judge, Agra.
The respondents then went to the Allahabad High Court by way of second appeal.
Acting in pursuance of this direction, the Commissioner passed an order on July 28, 1953, by which he cancelled his previous order and companyfirmed the order passed by the appellate authority, granting permission to the appellants to sue the respondents in ejectment.
The other issues which had been found in favour of the appellants were number raised before the learned Judge.
trial Judge, with the result that the respondents appeal was dismissed, on the 30th May, 1959.
On re hearing the matter, the Officer changed his view and rejected the appellants application for permission on August 9, 1952.
This order was clearly the result of the direction issued by the State Government under s.7 F of the Act.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, B.R.L. lyengar, S.K. Mehta, and L. Mehta, for the appellants.
It is with this issue that we are companycerned in the present appeal.
The respondents challenged this decree by preferring an appeal in the companyrt of the First Additional Civil Judge, Agra.
B. Agarwala, S.S. Khanuja and Ganpat Rai, for the respondents.
The two appellants applied to the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer hereafter called the Officer , under s. 3 of the Act for permission to file a suit in ejectment against the predecessors in interest of the respondents.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On February 4, 1953, the revisional authority allowed the revisional application and set aside the appellate order granting permission to the appellants.
58 4 0 and that the tenancy would companymence from the Sudi 1 of each Hindi month and end on Badi 15 of the next month.
764 of 1954.
863, situated at Jumna Kinara Road, Agra, companymonly known as Putaria Mahal.
This question arises in this way.
Their predecessors were let into possession as tenants by the appellants, Lala Shri Bhagwan and Shrimati Gopal Devi, on an agreement that they would pay a monthly rent of Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar, C.J. The short question of law which arises in this appeal by special leave is whether the revisional order passed by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh under s. 7 F of the Uttar Pradesh Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 hereinafter called the Act , is rendered invalid by reason of the fact that before passing the said order, the State Government did number hear the two respondents, Ram Chand and Kailash Chand, who were affected by it.
In the result, the trial companyrt passed a decree in favour of the appellants on August 31, 1957.
2272 of 1959.
The respondents are the present tenants of the premises bearing municipal No.
The appellate authority declined to companyfirm the permis sion granted to the appellants and remanded the case to the Officer for a fresh hearing.
