The State Government also rejected the revision application of the appellant tenant, filed under section 7F of the Act, against the Commissioners order.
For the second proposition reliance was placed upon Shyam Sunder Bajpai v. Commissioner Allahabad Division, Allhabad Anr.and Ram Lakhan v. Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi ors.
The appellant tenant then approached the Allahabad High Court with a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The tenant had applied on 19th August, 1969, for a certified companyy of the order of the Rent Control officer granting the landlord permission to sue and got its companyy on 25th August, 1969.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 8th August, 1973 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
It was rejected by the Commissioner on the ground that it was filed beyond the time prescribed by Section 3 2 of the Act which reads as follows Where any application has been made to the District Magistrate for permission to sue a tenant for eviction from any accommodation and the District Magistrate, grants or refuses to grant the permission, the party aggrieved by his order may within 30 days from the date on which the order is companymunicated to him apply to the Commissioner to revise the order.
Thereafter, the tenant filed a revision application under section 3 2 of the Act, purporting to be made to the Commissioner, Meerut Division, but actually filed on 16th September, 1969, before an Additional District Magistrate of Dehradun who had forwarded it on to the Commissioner.
The Revision Application was received in the Commissioners office on 24th September, 1969.
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court had rejected the tenants Special Appeal summarily.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
189 of 1972.
222 of 1975.
Sen, Mrs. Lela Seth, B. Mohan, Parveen Kumar and P. Khaitan for the appellant.
1 of the Act had merely imposed a bar on suits in Civil Courts filed without the permission of the District Magistrate except on certain grounds which are given there.
The permission was granted by the Rent Control and Eviction officer, Dehradun, as long ago as 11 August, 1969, and, thereafter, the suit for ejectment of the appellant was filed on 19th November, 1969.
S. Krishnamoorthy lyer and P. K. Pillai for Respondent No.
4 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG, J. The appellant, here, by special leave, is a tenant of premises in Dehradun in respect of which the landlord respondent No.
She is said to have been living at companysiderable expense to her at New Delhi due to inability to live in her own house at Dehradun as it has been occupied by the appellant.
4 had sought permission, under Section 3 of the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent Eviction Act III of 1947 hereinafter referred to as the 1093 Act , to sue for his eviction.
The plaintiff respondent, one Mrs. Sheila Kalha wife of a retired army officer, was given permission to file her suit on the ground that she required the accommodation for personal residence.
The petition was rejected by a learned Judge on 21st October, 1972, on two grounds firstly, under Section 3 2 of the Act and, secondly, that the time spent on obtaining the certified companyy of the order of the District Magistrate companyld number be excluded under Section 12 2 of the Limitation Act of 1963.
