ivil Appeal No 1449 of 1966
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated April 28 1966 of the AIIahabad High Court in Second Appeal No 289 of 1965
MK Ramatnurthi Shyamala Pappu and Vineet Kumar for the appellant
BC Misra O Prakash RK Mathur and MV Goswami for the respondent
577 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat J
The appellant is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord of House No 5B Old 122 Maya Mirganj Allahabad
The appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment by the landlord against the tenant from the house
On October 11 1961 the landlord obtained permission to institute the suit from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under section 3 1 of the UP Temp Control of Rent and Eviction Act 1947
On October 14 1961 the landlord instituted the present suit for eviction against the tenant
On March 27 1962 the Commissioner Allahabad Division acting under section 3 3 revoked the permission to institute the suit
On March 30 1963 the State Government acting under section 7F set aside the Commissioner s order and gave leave to the landlord to file the suit with effect from July 30 1963
On July 11 1963 the Trial Court decreed the suit
The tenant filed an appeal against the decree
On November 4 1963 the appellate court set aside the decree and remanded the suit for fresh trial
After the suit went back on remand the Trial Court decreed the suit on March 2 1964
The Trial Court held 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
An appeal against the decree was dismissed on November 28 1964
A second appeal was dismissed by the High Court on April 28 1966
The present appeal has been filed by the tenant after obtaining special leave
The sole question in the appeal is whether in the circumstances there was a valid permission to institute the suit under section 3 1 
In Bhagwan Das vs Paras Nath1 this Court held that a suit validly instituted after obtaining permission of the Commissioner under section 33 did not become incompetent if the State Government acting under section 7F revoked the permission after the institution of the suit
In that case the District Magistrate refused to give permission under section 3 1 to
institute the suit
The Commissioner acting under section 3 3 set aside the order and granted permission to institute the suit
The suit was decreed by the Trial Court on November 2 1960
The tenant filed an appeal against the decree
During the pendency of the appeal the State Government acting under section 7F revoked the permission granted by the Commissioner
The Court held that though the order under section 33 was subject to an order under section 7F the Government s power under section 7F to revoke the permission granted by the Commissioner became exhausted once the suit was validly instituted
In support of his contention that the present suit is not maintainable the appellant relies on the following observations of Hegde J   578 When the Commissioner sets aside the order passed by the District Magistrate granting permission to file a suit for ejecting a tenant the order of the Commissioner prevails
If he cancels the permission granted by the District Magistrate there is no effective permission left and the suit instituted by the plaintiff without a waiting his decision must be treated as one filed without any valid permission by the District Magistrate
 Having regard to these observations the present suit though validly instituted after obtaining the permission under section 3 1 became incompetent when the permission was revoked by the Commissioner under section 3 3
But the order under section 3 3 itself was set aside by the State Government under section 7F during the pendency of the suit
The question is what is the effect of this order under section 7F
Now section 34 provides that the order of the Commissioner under section 33 subject to an order passed by the State Government under section 7F
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 validly instituted
In Bhagwan Das s Case 1 the suit was validly instituted after obtaining permission from the Commissioner under section 3 3
The State Government could not render such a suit incompetent by any order under section 7F
In the present case the suit was validly instituted after obtaining permission from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under section 3 1
The effect of the order of the Commissioner revoking the permission was that the suit became incompetent
The State Government acting under section 7F had power to revise and set aside the Commissioner s order and restore the permission granted under section 3 1 so as to make the suit competent
The order of the State Government after stating that in the interest of justice the house should be available to the landlord for his use set aside the Commissioner s order under section 33
The result was that the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed under section 3 1 stood restored
The further direction in the order that the landlord is advised to file a suit for eviction from the house in dispute against the opposite party in a civil court under section 3 of the Act which will be applicable four months after the date of the order really means that the permission under section 31 would become effective on the expiry of 4 months
The landlord had thus an effective permission to institute the suit under section 31 on the expiry of four months from March 30 1963 that is to say as from July 30 1963
The 1  579 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
In the result the appeal is dismissed
There will no order as to costs
YP Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The respondent landlord obtained permission to institute a suit from the Rent Control  Eviction Officer under section 31 of the UP 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 33 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 ie 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 31 granting permission is revived
The result is that there is an effective permission to institute the suit under section 31 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 31 would become effective on the expiry of 4 months ie from July 30 1963
The landlord had thus an effective permission to institute the suit under section 31 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