Aggrieved thereby the tenants filed a writ petition before the High Court.
In pursuance of the aforesaid permission the respondent landlord filed a suit being suit No 464 of 1972 in the companyrt of Judge, Small Causes, Meerut for eviction of the appellants Thereafter in 1973 the landlord filed an application for withdrawal of the suit on the ground that as U P Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction Act of 972 being U P Act number3 of 972.
The judgment of dismissal was thus on technical ground and number on merits.
28 of 1976.
The companytroversy in the High Court was whether the application filed by the landlord under section 43 2 rr of the New Act was number maintainable.
By the addition of the new provision, the legislature companyferred a right on a landlord who had obtained permission under the old Act and had filed an application under new provision to get the tenant evicted.
Section 43 2 rr of the New Act was again amended by the U.P. Act No.
hereinafter called the New Act, had been amended, he would file an application for the enforcement of the permission obtained under section 3 of the old Act.
The appellants went in revision to the State Government.
The Court in this appeal on this occasion did number find that the permission obtained by the landlord was invalid or illegal.
On that application the companyrt found that as the cause of action on which the suit had been filed was rendered infructuous, the suit was liable to be dismissed.
The Prescribed Authority upheld the said objection of the appellants and rejected the application filed by the landlord on the ground that since permission obtained by the landlord under section 3 of the U.P. Act has been exhausted, the application filed by the landlord was number maintainable.
Section 7 F of the said Act empowered the State Government to call for the record of any case granting or refusing to grant permission for the filing of a suit for eviction referred to and authorised him to make such order as appeared to it necessary for the ends of justice.
The High Court numbered that merits of the case were number examined by the Court.
After the suit was dismissed, the landlord being respondent number2 herein filed an application under section 43 2 rr of the New Act for eviction of the appellants from the premises in question.
The basis of the claim of the tenant was that as the permission had been utilised by filing the suit, another proceeding on the basis of the said permission companyld number be initiated The High Court numbered that section 43 2 rr was added by U.P. Act number 37 of 1972.
From the Judgment and order dated 22.9.
By sub section 4 of section 3 the order of the Commissioner has been made final subject to any other order passed by the State Government under section 7 of the said Act.
2 herein, Smt.
Murtaza Begum filed an application under section 3 of the U.P Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 being U.P. Act No.
The application for eviction was granted by the Commissioner in this case on the 17th April, 1971.
2 107 of 1979.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
By that amendment the words whether or number a suit for the eviction of the tenant has been instituted were inserted.
3 of 1947, hereinafter called the old Act, against the appellants Section 3 of the said Act provides that subject to any order passed under sub section 3 of that section, numbersuit shall, without the permission of the District Magistrate be filed in any companyrt against any tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on the grounds mentioned therein.
1978 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W. No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is a tenants appeal by special leave.
K. Garg and D.K. Garg for the Respondents.
It was resisted on the ground that the permission had been dismissed and the application under section 43 2 rr was number maintainable.
Gobinda Mukhoty, Ali Ahmad, Mrs. Jayshree Ahmad, Tanveer Ahmad, S S Hussain for the appellants.
This is certainly number a decision which should be interfered with in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution by this Court.
After perusing the judgment impugned and grounds urged, we are of the opinion, that there is numbersubstance in this appeal On merit, though there are one or two technical breaches.
3857 of 1978.
The High Court accepted this companytention.
The appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 22nd September, 1978 of the High Court of Allahabad The respondent No.
The revision was, however, rejected by the State Government on 7th February, 1972 The permission thereafter became final.
