Civil Appeal No 222 of 1975
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 8th August 1973 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No 189 of 1972
B Sen Mrs Lela Seth B Mohan Parveen Kumar and OP Khaitan for the appellant
T section Krishnamoorthy lyer and P K Pillai for Respondent No 4 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG J
The appellant here by special leave is a tenant of premises in Dehradun in respect of which the landlord respondent No 4 had sought permission under Section 3 of the UP Temporary Control of Rent  Eviction Act III of 1947 hereinafter referred to as the 1093 Act  to sue for his eviction
The permission was granted by the Rent Control and Eviction officer Dehradun as long ago as 11 August 1969 and thereafter the suit for ejectment of the appellant was filed on 19th November 1969
Section 3 sub
1 of the Act had merely imposed a bar on suits in Civil Courts filed without the permission of the District Magistrate except on certain grounds which are given there
The plaintiff respondent one Mrs Sheila Kalha wife of a retired army officer was given permission to file her suit on the ground that she required the accommodation for personal residence
She is said to have been living at considerable expense to her at New Delhi due to inability to live in her own house at Dehradun as it has been occupied by the appellant
The tenant had applied on 19th August 1969 for a certified copy of the order of the Rent Control officer granting the landlord permission to sue and got its copy on 25th August 1969
Thereafter the tenant filed a revision application under section 32 of the Act purporting to be made to the Commissioner Meerut Division but actually filed on 16th September 1969 before an Additional District Magistrate of Dehradun who had forwarded it on to the Commissioner
The Revision Application was received in the Commissioner s office on 24th September 1969
It was rejected by the Commissioner on the ground that it was filed beyond the time prescribed by Section 32 of the Act which reads as follows 2 Where any application has been made to the District Magistrate for permission to sue a tenant for eviction from any accommodation and the District Magistrate grants or refuses to grant the permission the party aggrieved by his order may within 30 days from the date on which the order is communicated to him apply to the Commissioner to revise the order
 The State Government also rejected the revision application of the appellant tenant filed under section 7F of the Act against the Commissioner s order
The appellant tenant then approached the Allahabad High Court with a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
The petition was rejected by a learned Judge on 21st October 1972 on two grounds firstly under Section 32 of the Act and secondly that the time spent on obtaining the certified copy of the order of the District Magistrate could not be excluded under Section 122 of the Limitation Act of 1963
For the second proposition reliance was placed upon Shyam Sunder Bajpai vs Commissioner Allahabad Division Allhabad  Anrand Ram Lakhan vs Commissioner Varanasi Division Varanasi  ors
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court had rejected the tenant s Special Appeal summarily
This Court however granted special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution on 20th 1094 July 1975
We need not express any opinion on the correctness of the second proposition here if we agree with the High Court s view on the first point because in that case the tenant s application would be time barred even if the time spent in obtaining the copy was excluded
The only contention put forward by Mr B Sen on behalf of the tenani appellant on the first point is that there is a practice in Dehradun acting on some instruction of the Commissioner Meerut Division to receive revision applications to the Commissioner through an Additional District Magistrate of Dehradun who has therefore the Commissioner s authority to receive these applications
It was urged that the filing of the Revision application before an Additional District Magistrate should be deemed in these circumstances to be sufficient compliance with the requirements of Section 32 of the Act which provides as it clear from a bare look at it that the revision application lies before the Commissioner
It is difficult to see how a practice could possibly modify the provisions of the Act
There is not even a rule on this subject made by the State Govt
under the provisions of Section 17 of the Act which authorises the Govt
to make rules to give effect to the purposes of this Act
 There are rules on other matters but not on such a matter
Mr B Sen relied on a Division Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in T C Pasricha  Anr
vs The State of UPwhere it was held It appears that the Commissioner had authorised the District Magistrate to receive revisions meant for him
By so authorising the Commissioner was only indicating the place and the manner of representation of the revisions
Since the Rent Control Act did not either by itself or rules framed under it lay down the precise procedure in regard to the presentation of the revision the Commissioner who was the authority entitled to entertain and decide the revisions was within his rights to prescribe the procedure in respect of rep resentation of the revisions
The direction given by the Commissioner in 1946 with regard to the presentation of revision was valid and enforceable
In Pasrich s case supra the Single Judge decision in Seth Bal Gopal Das vs State of UP on the case now before us was noticed by the Division Bench and distinguished on the ground that there was no evidence here to prove that there was any such practice
Both Pasricha s case supra and the case now before us come from the Dehradun District
We think it is difficult to reconcile the Division Bench decision in Pasricha s case decided on 5th April 1973 with the summary rejection of the Special Appeal No 180 of 1973 on 8th August 1973 which is under appeal before us although we find that one of the learned Judges is common to both the Division Benches
1095 We prefer the reasoning of the learned Single Judge in Seth Bal Gopal Das vs State of UP supra to the reasoning of the Division Bench in Pasricha s case supra
A wrong practice cannot possibly modify what naturally and logically follows from the language in Section 32 of the Act
This provision says that the party aggrieved must apply to the Commissioner to revise the order
The natural inference is that the party must apply to the Commissioner directly and not through some other authority or official
It is true that Section 32 does not prescribe the manner and place of presentation of applications
But unless there is some rule made to confer authority upon the District Magistrate or the Additional District Magistrate concerned or his office to act as the agent of the Commissioner or a clear and specific authorisation by the Commissioner is proved we fail to see how filing a revision application before the Additional District Magistrate can be deemed to amount to making the application to the Commissioner
In Pasricha s case supra the Division Bench had gone to the extent of holding that some communication made by the Commissioner in 1946 to the District Magistrate of Dehradun even a copy of which was not placed before the Court could be shown by means of an affidavit of a party to have been both established and to be enough to confer an authority on an Additional District Magistrate of Dehradun to receive applications on behalf of the Commissioner under the provisions of Section 32 of the Act which were introduced after 1946 according to the statement of facts in Pasricha s case supra itself
Primafacie an authorisation cannot relate to a power or right conferred by a provision which could not be present to the mind of the Commissioner at all at the time when he is supposed to have made some communication to the District Magistrate as the provision for a revision in such a case did not even exist then
We therefore think that the reasoning of the Division Bench in Pasricha s case supra is unacceptable
The alleged practice cannot be held to have been even established
And in any event such a practice was not enough to confer authority to receive petitions on behalf of the Commissioner
For that purpose proof of at least specific authorisation by the Commissioner after the introduction of the new provision was required
The result is that we are unable to find any merit in the case of the appellant who has been able to hold up proceedings for his eviction long enough in respect of accommodation which on the allegations made on behalf of the landlord this term includes the land lady has been required to meet the landlord s dire personal needs since at least 1969
We hope that the trial of the suit in such a case will not be delayed now
We dismiss this appeal with costs throughout
MR Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The Rent Control and Eviction officer Dehradun
granted permission to the respondent landlady under section 3 of the UP Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act to file a suit for eviction of the appellant tenant on the ground that the accommodation was required for her personal residence
The tenant filed a revision application under section 32 of the Act purporting to be made to the Commissioner Meerut Division but actually filed before the Additional District Magistrate who rejected it as time barred
The appellant tenant s further revision application made under section 7F of the Act
was rejected by the State Government and then his petition under Article 226 was rejected by a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court on two grounds Firstly that neither the Act nor the rules made thereunder had any provision enabling the Additional District Magistrate to receive the tenant s application under section 32
and secondly that the time spent in obtaining the certified copy of the District Magistrate order could not be excluded under section 122 of the 
The appellant s special appeal was summarily rejected by a Division Bench of the High Court
In appeal by special leave the appellant contended before the Court that
as a practice had grown up in Dehradun that the Additional District Magistrate receives the revision applications made to the Commissioner the requirements of section 32 should be deemed to have been sufficiently complied with
Dismissing the appeal the Court  HELD There is not even a rule on this subject made by the State Government
A wrong practice cannot possibly modify what naturally follows from the language if s32 of the Act that the party must apply to the Commissioner directly and not through some other authority or official
For that purpose proof of at least specific authorisation by the Commissioner after the introduction of section 32 was required
1094C 1095A  F