Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 31, 1969 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeals Nos.
P. Goyal and M. V. Goswami, for the respondents in both the appeals .
The High Court observed that the only question argued before the Court related to the invalidity of the permission granted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer.
C. Setalvad, P. Parameswara Rao, K. C. Dua and S. M. Grover, for the appellants in both the appeals .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
But second appeals filed by the respondent before the High Court of Allahabad were allowed and the appellants suits were dismissed.
The respondent did number prefer any petition before the State Government under s. 7 F of the Act and on that account the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, exercising powers of the Commissioner under s. 3 3 , became final.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. A companymon question arises in these two appeals, and we will therefore dispose it of by this companymon judgment.
This order was companyfirmed in a revision application by the Additional Commissioner.
474, the appellants suits.
The High Court further observed that since a Full Bench judgment of the Court had held in Asa Singh v. B. D. Sanwal and Others 1 that while granting permission under s. 3 of the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act the District Magistrate is bound to companysider also the need of the tenant for the accommodation, if such a case is set up by him, and it was incumbent on the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to companysider the needs of the tenant before making the order sanctioning institution of a suit in ejectment, and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer having refused to companysider the needs of the tenant the permission granted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer cannot be said to be valid permission Accordingly the High Court allowed the appeals and dismissed A.I.R. 1969 All.
1463 and 1464 of 1969.
1197 and 1198 of 1967.
With special leave, these two appeals are preferred.
The appellant applied to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under s. 3 of the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, for permission to file a suit for a decree in ejectment against the respondent.
The Trial Court decreed the suits holding that the permission granted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was with jurisdiction and was number mala fide.
The appellant is the owner of a house at Shamli in District Muzaffarnagar in U.P., and the respondent is the tenant of that house.
The appellant then terminated the tenancy of the respondent in respect of the premises by a numberice as required by law and filed two suits in the Court of the Munsif, Kairana, for ejectment and for payment of arrears of rent.
By order dated June 4, 1965, that Officer granted the permission holding that the need of the appellant to occupy the premises was bona fide and genuine.
The decrees were companyfirmed in appeal to the District Court at Muzaffarnagar.
