http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: RAMJI DAS & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: TRILOK CHAND ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/02/1970

BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. HEGDE, K.S. GROVER, A.N.

CITATION:  1971 AIR 2361            1970 SCR  (3) 815

ACT: U.P.  (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (U.P.  of 1947),  s.  3-Permission  granted by the  Rent  Control  and Eviction Officer--Validity if can be challenged in suit  for eviction.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant-landlord  applied  to  the  Rent  Control   & Eviction Officer under s. 3 of the U.P. (Temporary)  Control of  Rent &*Eviction Art, 1947 for permission to file a  suit for  a  decree in ejectment against  the  respondent-tenant. The officer granted the permission, holding that the need of the  appellant  to  occupy the premises was  bona  fide  and genuine.    This   order  was  confirmed  in   a   ’revision application  by the Additional Commissioner.  ’Me  appellant then terminated the tenancy by notice and filed suits in the Civil  Court for ejectment and arrears of rent.   The  trial court  decreed  the  suits,  which  were  confirmed  by  the appellate  court.   But  in second appeal,  the  High  Court observed  that  it  was incumbent on the  Rent  Control  and Eviction  Officer to consider the needs of the  tenant,  and since  he  refused  to  consider  the  tenant’s  needs   the permission  was  invalid,  and the  appellant’s  suits  were liable to be dismissed.  In appeal, this Court, HELD:The  decision of the Rent Control and Eviction  Officer was  not  in  the  suits filed  by  the  appellant  open  to objection. The proceeding under s. 3(2) before the District  Magistrate or before the Rent Control & Eviction Officer, who exercises his  powers  as  delegated under the  Act,  and  before  the Commissioner  under s. 3(3) of the U.P. (Temporary)  Control of  Rent and Eviction Act are quasi-judicial  in  character. By  sub-section (4) of s. 3 of the Act the decision  of  the Commissioner under sub-s. (3) of s. 3, subject to any  order passed  by the State Government under s. 7-F of the Act,  is declared final.  The -respondent did not prefer any petition before  the State Government under s. 7-F of the Act and  on that  -account  the order passed by the  Additional  Commis- sioner, exercising powers of the Commissioner under s. 3(3), became final.  Finality of the order declared by s. 3(4) and s.  16  of the Act does not exclude the  jurisdiction  under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

Art.  226 of the Constitution to issue an  appropriate  writ quashing the order.  But subject to interference by the High Court,  the decision must be deemed final and is not  liable to be challenged in any collateral proceeding. [817 B-D] Even  granting  that the Additional Commissioner  reached  a wrong conclusion, the decision was not without  jurisdiction and  the only avenue for correction is the one  provided  by the  Act, i.e. by approaching the State Government under  s. 7-F. [817 H] Asa Singh v. B. D. Sanwal & Ors.  A.I.R. 1969 All. 474, held inapplicable.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1463  and 1464 of 1969. 816 Appeals  by special leave from the judgment and order  dated January  31,  1969  of the Allahabad High  Court  in  Second Appeals Nos. 1197 and 1198 of 1967. M.   C.  Setalvad, P. Parameswara Rao, K. C. Dua and  S.  M. Grover, for the appellants _(in both the appeals). J.   P.   Goyal and M. V. Goswami, for the  respondents  (in both the appeals). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. A common question arises in these two appeals,  and we will therefore dispose it of by this common judgment. 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 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.   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".  This  order  was confirmed  in  a  revision  application  by  the  Additional Commissioner.  The appellant then terminated the tenancy  of the  respondent in respect of the premises by -a  notice  as required  by  law and filed two suits in the  Court  of  the Munsif, Kairana, for ejectment and for payment of arrears of rent.   The Trial Court decreed the suits holding  that  the permission granted by the Rent Control and Eviction  Officer was with "jurisdiction and was not mala fide".  The  decrees were   confirmed  in  appeal  to  the  District   Court   at Muzaffarnagar.   But second appeals filed by the  respondent before  the  High Court of Allahabad were  allowed  and  the appellant’s  suits were dismissed.  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.  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 consider 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 consider "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 consider 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

(1)  A.I.R. 1969 All. 474,                             817 the  appellant’s  suits.   With  special  leave,  these  two appeals are preferred. The proceeding before the District Magistrate under s. 3 (2) and  before  the  Commissioner under s.  3(3)  of  the  U.P. (Temporary)  Control  of Rent and Eviction  Act  are  quasi- judicial  in character.  By s. 3(4) of the Act the  decision of the Commissioner under sub-s. (3) of s. 3, subject to any order  passed  by the State Government under s. 7-F  of  the Act,  is declared final.  The respondent did not 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. -Section 16 of the Act provides that  no order  made  under the Act by the State  Government  or  the District  Magistrate  shall  be called in  question  in  any Court.   It is true that the finality of the order  declared by  s. 3(4) and s. 16 will not exclude the  jurisdiction  of the  High Court in exercise of the jurisdiction  under  Art. 226  of the Constitution to issue an appropriate  writ  qua- shing  the order.  But subject to interference by  the  High Court,  the decision must be deemed final and is not  liable to be challenged in, any collateral proceeding. In our view, the High Court was in error in holding that the decision  of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer  was,  in the suits filed by the appellant, open to the objection that the Officer did not consider the "needs of the tenant".  The Rent  Control and Eviction Officer had jurisdiction to  hear and decide the matter.  Even if we assume that he  committed an  error  in the exercise of his  jurisdiction,  the  error could be corrected only in a proceeding under s. 7-F of  the Act  by  approaching the State Government and by Way  of  a’ writ  petition to the High Court, but the order made by  the Rent  Control  and  Eviction Officer and  confirmed  by  the Additional Commissioner could not be challenged in the suit. Mr.  Goyal appearing on behalf of the  respondent  contended that  the  validity of an order which has been made  by  the Rent  Control and Eviction Officer which is contrary to  the rules  of  natural justice, may be challenged in  the  suit. Reliance  in  that behalf was placed upon Shri  Bhagwan  and Anr.  v. Ram Chand & Anr.(1). But in reaching  an  erroneous conclusion  the Rent Control and Eviction Officer  does  not act  in a manner contrary to the rules of  natural  justice. The  Rent Control and Eviction Officer had  jurisdiction  to decide   the  case.   Granting  that  he  reached  a   wrong conclusion,  the decision was not without  jurisdiction  and the  only avenue for correction is the one provided  by  the Act, i.e., by approaching the State Government under s. 7-F. If the State- (1)  [1965] 3 S.C.R. 218. 818 Government was not moved, the order became final and was not liable to be challenged in the suits filed by the appellant. The  decision  of the Allahabad High Court  in  Asa  Singh’s case(1) has no application, for it was reached in a case  in which  a special appeal was filed in a  proceeding  -arising out  of  a writ petition.  It was apparently not a  case  in which the validity of the permission given by the  authority exercising  power  under s. 3 of the Act was  sought  to  be challenged  in a suit instituted by the landlord.   We  need express  no opinion on the question whether the  High  Court was  right  in taking the view it has done in  Asa  ’Singh’s case(1). The appeals are therefore allowed and the decree, passed  by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

the  High Court is set aside and the decree of the  District Court  is confirmed.  There will be no order as to costs  in this Court. Y.P.                                                  Appeal allowed. (1) A.I.R. 1969 All. 474. 819