institute the suit.
on march 30 1963 the state government acting under s. 7f set aside the companymissioners order and gave leave to the landlord to file the suit with effect from july 30 1963.
the trial companyrt held that the permission granted by the state government became effective from july 30 1963 and as the suit was still pending a decree companyld be passed in the suit.
a second appeal was dismissed by the high companyrt on april 28 1966.
on october 14 1961 the landlord instituted the present suit for eviction against the tenant.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated april 28 1966 of the aiiahabad high companyrt in second appeal number 289 of 1965.
in that case the district magistrate refused to give permission under s. 3 1 to.
the suit was decreed by the trial court on numberember 2 1960.
the companymissioner acting under s. 3 3 set aside the order and granted permission to institute the suit.
on numberember 4 1963 the appellate companyrt set aside the decree and remanded the suit for fresh trial.
in bhagwan das v. paras nath 1 this companyrt held that a suit validly instituted after obtaining permission of the commissioner under s. 3 3 did number become incompetent if the state government acting under s. 7f revoked the permission after the institution of the suit.
the present appeal has been filed by the tenant after obtaining special leave.
c. misra o. prakash r.k.
after the suit went back on remand the trial companyrt decreed the suit on march 2 1964.
during the pendency of the appeal the state government acting under s. 7f revoked the permission granted by the companymissioner.
an appeal against the decree was dismissed on numberember 28 1964.
goswami for the respondent.
the tenant filed an appeal against the decree.
companytrol of rent and eviction act 1947.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1449 of 1966.
the tenant filed an appeal against the decree.
on july 11 1963 the trial companyrt decreed the suit.
the appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment by the landlord against the tenant from the house.
the sole question in the appeal is whether in the circumstances there was a valid permission to institute the suit under s. 3 1 .
on march 27 1962 the companymissioner allahabad division acting under s. 3 3 revoked the permission to institute the suit.
k. ramatnurthi shyamala pappu and vineet kumar for the appellant.
on october 11 1961 the landlord obtained permission to institute the suit from the rent companytrol and eviction officer under s. 3 1 of the u.p.
mathur and m.v.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by bachawat j. the appellant is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord of house number 5b old 122 maya mirganj allahabad.
