2000 (3) TMI 1080 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the State Government's order quashing the permission under Section 7-F of the old Act.
2. Effect of the stay order by the High Court on the State Government's order.
3. Bar of the suit under Section 3 of the old Act.
4. Applicability of Section 43(2)(rr) of the new Act for eviction.

Summary:

Issue 1: Validity of the State Government's order quashing the permission under Section 7-F of the old Act
The State Government quashed the permission granted to Dr. Kalindi Mitter for eviction of Smt. Sushila Saigal under Section 7-F of the United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 ("the old Act") on 27.06.1961. This decision was upheld by the IInd Addl. Munsif, Kanpur, who found that the permission was set aside and thus, the suit was not maintainable.

Issue 2: Effect of the stay order by the High Court on the State Government's order
The High Court stayed the operation of the State Government's order dated 12.10.1961, which initially rejected the revision filed by Smt. Sushila Saigal. This stay order was in effect on the date the suit was instituted, leading to the conclusion that the suit was not maintainable.

Issue 3: Bar of the suit under Section 3 of the old Act
The suit was barred under Section 3 of the old Act as the permission granted to Dr. Kalindi Mitter was quashed by the State Government. Subsequent applications for permission to file a suit for eviction were also rejected, and revisions were dismissed, thereby preventing any fresh suit from being legally instituted.

Issue 4: Applicability of Section 43(2)(rr) of the new Act for eviction
The new Act, U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 ("the new Act"), replaced the old Act. Section 43(2)(rr) allows for the execution of permissions granted under the old Act without fresh satisfaction if the grounds specified in Section 21(1) or Section 21(2) of the new Act are met. However, the application under Section 43(2)(rr) was not maintainable in this case because the landlord sought to occupy the residential portion for non-residential purposes, which is not a valid ground under Section 21(1) or Section 21(2). Therefore, the High Court's allowance of the application was incorrect.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment dated 27.05.1999 was set aside, and the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge were maintained, dismissing the application under Section 43(2)(rr) without any order as to costs.