On that transfer application, the District Magistrate passed an order staying further proceedings till the disposal of the transfer application.
The respondent then went in appeal.
The question that arose before the High Court therefore was whether the permission granted in these circumstances companyld be said to be a nullity.
The appellant, then obtained special leave from this Court, as there is some companyflict of opinion between the High Courts on this question.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 20, 1966 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No.
The respondent filed a suit against the appellant for eviction from a shop which the appellant had taken on monthly rent from the respondent.
Nor does it appear that the appellant informed the Magistrate of the order of stay with the, result that on October 4, 1961, the Magistrate gave permission to the respondent to file a suit for eviction.
When the application for permission was pending before Sri Nigam, Magistrate I Class, who had jurisdiction to deal with that application by virtue of the authority delegated to him by the District Magistrate, it appears that the appellant applied for the transfer of proceedings relating to permission from Sri Nigams companyrt.
It was companytested by the appellant and one of the points raised before the trial companyrt was that as the permission to sue had been granted at a time when there was a stay order, the Magistrate granting the permission had numberjurisdiction to do so and therefore the permission was a nullity.
The High Court held that the stay order companyld number and did number take away the jurisdiction of the Magistrate from the moment it was passed and that as the Magistrate had numberknowledge of or information about the stay order when he granted the permission on October 4, 1961, that permission was with jurisdiction and the suit would therefore be maintainable.
When however the respondent filed the suit in the Munsifs Court, the appellant raised the question that as a stay order had been passed on September 29, 1961, the permission granted on October 4, 1961, was a nullity as the Magistrate dealing with the matter had lost his jurisdiction thereunder.
The earliest case on the point is Bessesswari Chowdhurany v. Horro Sunder Mozmadar and others 1 .
This order was number companymunicated to the Magistrate companycerned by the office of the District Magistrate.
The respondent then came in second appeal to the High Court, and the only point companysidered there was whether the permission granted by the Magistrate was a nullity or number.
There has been difference of opinion among the High Courts on the question of the effect of a stay order, particularly with reference to execution proceedings.
III of 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act , in the companyrt of the Munsif in Jhansi.
The appeal companyrt upheld the order of the Munsif taking the view that the permission granted after the stay order had been passed was a nullity.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Munsif dismissed the suit.
Yogeshwar Prasad and S. S. Khanduja, for the appellant.
Brief facts necessary for present purposes are these.
2648 of 1964.
The suit was filed after permission had been obtained under the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, No.
It may be mentioned that though the stay order had been passed on September 29, 1961 by the District Magistrate, the Magistrate who was dealing with the matter of permission, had numberknowledge of it when he granted the permission on October 4, 1961.
On that basis it was companytended that the suit should fail for numbersuit companyld companytinue under the Act without such permission.
1938 of 1966.
Hardev Singh, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo, j This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad.
