| The respondent landlord obtained permission to institute a suit from the Rent Control & Eviction Officer under section 3(1) of the U.P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, for ejecting from his house the Appellant tenant. |
| The respondent filed a suit for eviction against the appellant. |
| Later the Commissioner acting under section 3(3) revoked the permission But the State Government on March 30, 1963 acting under section 7F set aside the Commissioner 's order and gave leave to the respondent to file the suit after 4 months of the date of the order i.e., July 30. |
| On July 11, 1963 the trial court decreed the suit. |
| The appellant filed an appeal. |
| The appellate court set aside the trial court 's decree and remanded the suit for fresh trial. |
| On remand, the trial court decreed the suit on March 2, 1964 holding that the permission granted by the State Government became effective from July 30, 1963 and as the suit was. |
| still pending a decree could be passed in the suit. |
| This decision was affirmed by the first appellate court, and also by the High Court. |
| Dismissing the .appeal this Court. |
| HELD: If the State Government acting under section 7F sets aside the order of the Commissioner revoking the permission. |
| the order under section 3(1) granting permission is revived. |
| The 'result is that there is an effective permission to institute the suit under section 3(1) and the suit is validity instituted. |
| [578 D] The direction of the 'State 'Government to file the suit after four months of the order meant that the permission under section 3(1) would become effective on the expiry of 4 months i.e. from July 30, 1963. |
| The landlord had thus an effective permission to institute the suit under section 3(1) from July 30, 1963. |
| The decree in the suit was passed on March 2. 1964. |
| On that date the landlord had a valid permission to institute the suit. |
| The suit was therefore maintainable. |
| [578 H] Bhagwan Das vs Paras Nath, ; , distinguished. |
|
|
