Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1987 (11) TMI 389

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cision which should be interfered with in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution by this Court. The appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 22nd September, 1978 of the High Court of Allahabad The respondent No. 2 herein, Smt. Murtaza Begum filed an application under section 3 of the U.P Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 being U.P. Act No. 3 of 1947, hereinafter called the old Act, against the appellants Section 3 of the said Act provides that subject to any order passed under sub-section (3) of that section, no suit shall, without the permission of the District Magistrate be filed in any court against any tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on the grounds mentioned therei .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ting Rent and Eviction) Act of 972 being U P Act no 3 of 972. hereinafter called the New Act, had been amended, he would file an application for the enforcement of the permission obtained under section 3 of the old Act. On that application the court found that as the cause of action on which the suit had been filed was rendered infructuous, the suit was liable to be dismissed. After the suit was dismissed, the landlord being respondent no 2 herein filed an application under section 43(2)(rr) of the New Act for eviction of the appellants from the premises in question. It was resisted on the ground that the permission had been dismissed and the application under section 43(2)(rr) was not maintainable. The Prescribed Authority upheld the sa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... order of the District Judge dated 28th April, 1978. Aggrieved thereby the tenants filed a writ petition before the High Court. The controversy in the High Court was whether the application filed by the landlord under section 43(2)(rr) of the New Act was not maintainable. The basis of the claim of the tenant was that as the permission had been utilised by filing the suit, another proceeding on the basis of the said permission could not be initiated The High Court noted that section 43(2)(rr) was added by U.P. Act no. 37 of 1972. By the addition of the new provision, the legislature conferred a right on a landlord who had obtained permission under the old Act and had filed an application under new provision to get the tenant evicted. Section .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ismissed on the ground that the cause of action did not survive to the landlord, it should be held that the landlord had no right left to file an application under section 43(2)(rr). This was, in our opinion, rightly rejected by the High Court. The High Court negatived the contention of the tenant that dismissal of the first action taken by the landlord after obtaining permission under the old Act precluded the landlord from taking the second action under section 43(2)(rr) of the Act. We are of the opinion that the High Court was right. It will be appropriate at this stage to refer to the provisions of section 43(2)(rr) or the New Act which are as follows: Where any permission referred to in Section 3 of the old Act has been obtaine .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ct 13 of 1972, was not maintainable. It was clearly erroneous contention. It would frustrate the very purpose of the express provision of section 43(2)(rr). Finality of order in judicial proceeding is one of the essential principles which the scheme of the administration of justice, must strive for. See in this connection the observations of D.K Soni v. P.K. Mukherjee Ors., (Civil Appeal No. 6626/83 Judgment dated 27. 10. 1987). It was contended before the High Court that no appeal lay from the decision of the Prescribed Authority to the District Judge. The High Court accepted this contention. The High Court finally held that though no appeal lay before the District Judge, the order of the Prescribed Authority was invalid and was rightly .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates