Munsif, Kanpur, by judgment dated 24.11.1965.
The application was allowed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated 23.4.1960 against which a revision was filed by Smt.
During the pendency of the revision before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, the old Act was replaced by the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 for short, the new Act .
under Section 7 F of the old Act.
If the permission was granted either by the District Magistrate or the Commissioner or, for that matter, by the State Govt.
It was further found that the operation of the order dated 12.10.1961, by which the revision filed by Smt.
Sushila Saigal but the application was rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 30.11.1966.
Sushila Saigal.
The application for withdrawal of suit, filed by Dr. Kalindi Mitter, was ultimately allowed by the Addl.
This would enable one to read all the words used in the Statutory provisions, so as to reach the companyrect companyclusion on the true meaning intended to be companyveyed by the Legislature by the use of those words.
This order was challenged in Writ Petition No.
Sushila Saigal.
After remand, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated 9.12.1968 allowed the application and granted permission to the landlady, Dr. Kalindi Mitter, to file the suit for eviction and Dr. Kalindi Mitter, on the basis of this permission, filed regular suit No.654 of 1969 for the eviction of Smt.
Eastern residential portion of the property bearing No.
Whether the operation of the order of the State Government dated 12.10.1961 has been stayed by the Honble High Court as alleged in para 15 of the written statement?
It appears that on the basis of the permission granted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 23.4.1960, Dr. Kalindi Mitter instituted regular suit No.1664 of 1961 which came to be disposed of by the IInd Addl.
Judge, Small Causes, to companysider the application of Dr. Kalindi Mitter for withdrawal of the suit and pass appropriate orders thereon.
6609 of 1973 in the Allahabad High Court in which an interim order was passed by the High Court on 11th of October, 1973.
If so its effect?
The plaintiff has prayed for simple withdrawal of the suit and is number seeking permission to file a fresh suit on this cause of action.
But during the pendency of the application, Dr. Kalindi Mitter died on 4th of June, 1977.
These orders were challenged in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
Sushila Saigal in a Writ Petition which was allowed on 16.3.1971 with a direction to the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, to restore the revision to its original number and dispose it of on merits.
Dr. Kalindi Mitter who had purchased the property in 1959, filed an application for permission under Section 3 of the old Act for filing a suit for the eviction of Smt.
The revision was ultimately dismissed by the Second Addl.
The front residential portion was transferred in favour of Ram Narain Awasthi while the back residential portion was transferred in favour of Jugal Kishore Arora and his brothers, K.P. Arora, Vijay Arora and Harsh Vardhan.
Dr. Kalindi Mitter had number prayed for leave of the Court to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action number such leave was granted to her.
The High Court, by its order dated 27.3.1974, directed the Addl.
In view of the findings recorded by the learned Munsif on issue No.2, it was held that the suit was number maintainable.
It is only in sub rule 2 of rule 1 of order 23 C.P.C. that the permission of the companyrt is needed for filing a fresh suit on the cause of action.
Sushila Saigal, by an allotment order passed under the provisions of the United Provinces Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 for short, the old Act .
Judge, Small Causes Court observed as under I have heard the learned companynsel for the parties and have perused the application and objection against it.
In the meantime, the heirs of Dr. Kalindi Mitter transferred the property in question in two parts by sale dated 18.4.1979.
7/152, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur, which is the accommodation in question, was allotted, some time in 1947, to Smt.
This order was challenged by Smt.
Judge, Small Causes, Kanpur.
Whether the suit is barred under Section 3 of the U.P. Act III of 1947?
Judge, Small Causes, Kanpur, by his order dated 24.4.1974 and the suit was allowed to be withdrawn.
An appeal, thereafter, filed against that order was dismissed by the District Judge, Kanpur, by his judgment dated 21.5.1981.
In that suit, several issues were framed but three relevant issues are reproduced below 1.
The Prescribed Authority by order dated 6th of May, 1980, rejected the application of Dr. Kalindi Mitter under Section 43 2 rr .
A revision filed against that order was allowed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, on 6.2.1968 and the case was remanded to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for fresh disposal.
Order 23 rule 1 sub rule 1 enables the plaintiff to withdraw his suit at any time after the institution of the same.
The permission granted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 9.12.1968 was challenged by Smt.
In either case, the order passed by the District Magistrate was revisable by the Commissioner under sub section 2 of Section 3 and was further revisable by the State Govt.
During the companyrse of the order, the learned Addl.
It is this Writ Petition which has been allowed by the High Court by the impugned judgment which is the subject matter of the present appeal.
On 1st of April, 1976, Dr. Kalindi Mitter filed an application for the eviction of Smt.
She was substituted by her legal representatives.
10793 of 1981 in the Allahabad High Court filed on behalf of the heirs of Dr. Kalindi Mitter in which the transferees were also impleaded as respondents at a subsequent stage and later, they came to be transposed as companypetitioners.
The interim order dated 10.11.1973 was, therefore, vacated.
SAGHIR AHMAD, J. Leave granted.
Sushila Saigal before the Commissioner which was dismissed but a further revision filed by her before the State Government under Section 7 F of the old Act was allowed on 27th of June, 1961 and the application of Dr. Kalindi Mitter for permission under Section 3 of the old Act to file a suit for eviction was rejected.
District Judge, Kanpur, on 22.9.1973.
During the pendency of the Writ Petition, an application was filed on behalf of Dr. Kalindi Mitter that the interim order dated 11th of October, 1973 be vacated on the ground that Dr. Kalindi Mitter did number want to proceed with Regular Suit No.654 of 1969 already instituted by her in the companyrt of Addl.
It was found by the learned Munsif that the permission granted to Dr. Kalindi Mitter was set aside by the State Government on 27.6.1961.
This appeal involves a little interpretative effort.
Sushila Saigal before the State Government under Section 7 F was, at one stage, rejected, was stayed by the State Government itself on 13.10.1961 on which date the suit was also, incidentally, instituted.
Not like Themis, blindfolded, but like Astraea, the Roman Goddess of justice holding a Scale Balance without folds on the eyes and occupying the pride of place as Libra in the Zodiacal companystellation.
Dr. Kalindi Mitter filed another application under Section 3 of the old Act for permission to file a suit for eviction against Smt.
In view of the provisions companytained in Section 43 2 m of the new Act, the revision was transferred to the District Judge, Kanpur, for disposal.
The new Act came into force with effect from 15.7.1972.
Sushila Saigal, on the ground that she would shift her nursing home, already running in some other building, to the residential portion in occupation of Smt.
Sushila Saigal in a revision filed before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, but the revision was dismissed in default on 19.3.1969 on account of number appearance of Smt.
Sushila Saigal.
