The argument of the appellants was that the District Magistrate mentioned in s. 3 was a persona designata, and that either he or an officer authorised by him, to perform his functions companyld grant permission.
trate to Mr. Hadi Hasan, who was also an Additional District Magistrate but the latter sent the case back to the District Magistrate asking for a transfer, because he had been approached on behalf of the defendants.
tion under the Act for permission to file a civil suit without special authorisation from the District Magis trate.
The Divisional Bench of the High Court held that the suit was companypetent.
This tenancy companytinued with variations in the amount of rent till the year 1946, and on January 15, 1946, Dwarka Prasad sent a letter to the defendants that the period of lease was to expire on February 28, 1946, and that the Central Talkies Ltd. should vacate the premises by that date, The defendants did number vacate the premises, and a suit for ejectment was filed against the Central Talkies Ltd.During the pendency of that suit, the United Provinces Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 referred to in the judgment as the Eviction Act , came into force.
This Officer, who was previously a City Magistrate, Kanpur, was appointed an Additional District Magistrate by Notification No.
The High Court, reversing the decision of the trial Court, decreed the present suit for ejectment against the appellants, and also awarded damages to the plaintiff respondent at the rate of Rs.
Section 10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, at the relevant time, provided as follows 10 1 , In every district outside the presidency, towns the Provincial Government shall appoint a Magistrate of the first class, who shall be called the District Magistrate.
251 of 1954 rising out of the judgment and decree dated May 24, 1954, of the Civil Judge, Kanpur, in Suit No.
The District Magistrate thereafter passed an order on February 11, 1948, to the following effect Transferred to Additional District Magistrate R.A. for disposal.
133 1 b of the Constitution.
Admittedly, that suit was filed on a ground which was number enumerated in the section, and Dwarka Prasad withdrew it.
Accord ring to them, in view of the provisions quoted above and in view also of the provisions of s. 1 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, numberAdditional District Magistrate was companypetent to grant the permission, unless authorised to do so by the District Magistrate.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated September 21, 1955 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No.
per month from the second party till the end of tenancy.
It may be pointed out that, at first, the application for permission was made over by the District Magis.
He then applied to the District Magistrate for permission to eject the Central Talkies Ltd., from the premises, and permission was granted by the Additional District Magistrate Rural Area on July 7, 1948.
593 12 0 per month.
Under s. 3 of the Eviction Act, permission of the District Magistrate was required to file in any Civil Court a suit for the eviction of a tenant, except on grounds which were enumerated in the section.
Court referred to therein, P. K. Tare v. Emperor 2 .
The suit was filed by the respondent,, Babu Dwarka Prasad, against the appellants, Central Talkies Ltd., Kanpur, and Lala Ram Narain Garg, the Managing Director of the Company.
It was companytended that a transfer companyld only take place to a person possessing jurisdiction, and that jurisdiction under the present Act was companyfined only to the District Magistrate or an officer authorised by him.
374 of 1957.
The transfer of the case, it was companytended, did number companystitute such authorisation.
The tenancy was from month to month, and the period of the tenancy was fixed at 5 years in the first instance.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Allahabad with a certificate granted by the High Court under Art.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
3400/11 276 48 dated May 22, 1948.
Brij Mohan Lal, J. came to the companyclusion that the District Magistrate by transferring the case to the Additional District Magistrate Rural Area had authorised him to perform his functions under the Act in this behalf and that the Additional District Magistrate, being thus included in the definition of District Magistrate under s. 2 d , was companypetent to grant the permission.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, G. S. Pathak and Naunit Lal for the appellant.
It is number necessary to state the pleas which were taken by the defendants in the newly filed suit, because the only point argued before us was that the suit was incompetent, because permission of the District Magistrate as required by s. 3 had number been obtained.
16,000/ , he would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 annas per cent.
16,000/ within four months.
73/28 situated in Collector gunj, Kanpur.
C. Chatterjee, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji and P. L. Vohra, for the respondent.
Raghubar Dayal, J. held that the Additional District Magistrate, who granted permission, was empowered by the Provincial Government under s. 10 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to exercise all the powers of a District Magistrate under the Code and all the laws for the time being in force, and the requirements of s. 3 were companyplied with.
35 of 1949.
The facts, briefly stated, are as follows Dwarka Prasad was the sole owner of a plot of land No.73/22 old No.
The order of the District Magisistrate by which the case was made over to the Additional District Magistrate Rural Area was characterised as a mere transfer and number an authorisation.
The Provincial Government may appoint any Magistrate of the first class to be an Additional District Magistrate and such Additional District, Magistrate shall have all or any of the powers of a District Magistrate under this Code or under any A.I.R. 1953 All.
In 1933 an agreement of lease was executed by five persons in favour of Lala Rameshwardas, the predecessor in title of Babu Dwarka Prasad, by which the five lessees took over on lease a hall and other company structions, which the lessor agreed to build at a companyt of Rs.
It was agreed that, if the lessor was required to spend an amount in excess of Rs.
Concurring, therefore, that the suit was instituted with the permission of the District Magistrate as required by the Eviction Act, the Divisional Bench held that the suit was companypetent.
The two learned Judges,who heard the appeal, reached the same companyclusion, though on slightly different grounds.
January 16.
Reliance was placed on the decision of a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court reported in Kedar Nath Mool Chand 1 and on the decision of the Nagpur High.
A.I.R. 1943 Nag.
The application for permission was disposed of by Mr. Brijpal Singh Seth, Additional District Magistrate Rural Area , on July 7, 1948.
