The High Court set aside the order of the Government on the ground that the State Government in, deciding the revision petition had allowed itself to be influenced by irrelevant companysiderations.
Prabhawati Devis revision under section 7 F of Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, according to law.
The appellant challenged that order by means of a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court.
B. may please see for orders.
It reads GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH RENT CONTROL DEPARTMENT No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated February 5, 1971 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
When the revision petition came up for hearing before the State Government, the respondent submitted before the State Government that it was number companypetent to hear the revision petition in view of the institution of the suit and for that purpose, it relied on a decision of the High Court holding that a revision petition pending before the State Government becomes infructuous once a suit for eviction is filed in pursuance of the permission given by the Commissioner.
Dated Lucknow, June 14, 1966.
11 Rampur Mandi Road, Dehra Dun.
In due companyrse the Government allowed the revision petition.
The petitioner shall get companyts of this petition from respondent No.
With reference to her petition dated April 2, 1965.
Consequently, on the institution of the civil suit for eviction of the appellant, her revision petition before the State Government became infructuous.
Consequently it was number open to the respondent to file the suit before the revision petition was disposed of by the State Government.
12 an orders of J.S. 1 1965 3 S.C.R. 218.
For that purpose she applied to the District Magistrate, Dehradun, who is also the Rent Controller, under S. 3 of the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 to, the hereinafter referred to as the Act for permission to sue the appellant for her eviction The permission asked for was granted by the Rent Controller.
This order was Dassed on February 28, 1967.
That order has its own special features.
The companycluding portion of the order of the High Court reads The petition is allowed.
The State Government accepted that companytention and dismissed the revision petition on the sole ground that the proceeding before it became infructuous in view of the institution of the civil suit.
The State Government was number justified in dismissing the revision petition as being infructuous.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
As against that order, the appellant went up in revision to the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut who affirmed the order of the District Magistrate.
In our opinion, the suit filed by the respondent was a premature one.
The State Government is directed to rehear Smt.
ORDER Subject Smt.
at the bottom thereon may also please be seen, submitted.
The High Court came to the companyclusion that the stay granted by the State Government had lapsed when the revision petition was disposed of and the same did number stand revived when the High Court directed the State Government to rehear the matter and dispose of the same according to law.
She is occupying one of the premises belonging to the respondent.
On the very next day, the respondent filed a suit for eviction of the appellant.
The respondent challenged the legality of the order made by the State Government before the High Court of Allahabad in a petition under Art.
V. Tarkunde and S. S. Shukla, for the appellant.
C. Chagla and Rameshwar Nath, for the respondent.
1116 of 1969.
Later the State Government allowed the reyision,petition and set aside the permission granted.
As against that order, this appeal has been brought by special leave.
1813 of 1971.
persuaded.
The order of the State Government dated 14 6 1966 Annexure E to the,petition is quashed.
Thereafter the appellant went up in revision to the State Government.
The appellant is a tenant of the respondent.
226 of the Constitution.
Hence it is necessary to set out the facts of the case in some detail.
Sd B. N. Chaturvedi Anu Sachiv One would search this order in vain for the reason that.
the State Government to allow the revision petition., ,
During the pendency of that proceeding the State Government passed an order of stay which reads Operation of the permission under S. 3 of the Act granted by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut to the opposite party, landlady to file the suit for the petitioners ejectment from the house in question is stayed pending companysideration of the case by the State Government.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. Though this appeal relates to a companyparatively small matter, it has exposed several disturbing features.
13, to file a civil suit of ejectment against the petitioner from the premises in dispute.
