Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 116. of 1964. Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 13	 1960	 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 212	 of 1956. J. P. Goyal and B. P. Jha	 for the appellants. A. V. Ranganadham Chetty and A. V. Rangam	 for the res pondents. At the time when the present suit was brought	 the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act	 1947 (U.P. Act III of 1947) (hereinafter called 'the Act ') was in force. Section 3 of the Act imposes certain restrictions on the landlord 's right to eject his tenant from the premises to which the Act applies. Broadly stated	 the effect of the provisions contained in section 3(1) is that a landlord can evict his tenant if he satisfies two conditions. The first condition is that he must obtain the permission of the District Magistrate to file such a suit; and the second condition is that he must provethe existence of one or the other of the seven grounds; enumeratedin clauses (a) to (g) of section 3(1). We shall presently refer to therelevant provisions of this section. In their plaint	 the appellants pleaded that they needed the premises in suit to carry on their own business in the shop	 and they alleged that they had applied for permission to the District Magistrate	 Moradabad	 under section 3 (1 ) of the Act; that the said permission had been refused by him	 whereupon they had moved the Commissioner in his revisions jurisdiction under section 3(2) of the Act; and that the Commissioner had given them permission to file the suit. That is how the appellants claimed to have satisfied both the	 conditions prescribed by section 3 (1). The appellants further claim 555 ed ejectment of the respondents and asked for a decree for damages. for use and occupation of the suit premises from 11th April	 1953 to 11th July	 1954 Rs. 35/ per month. The suit (No. 349	 of 1954) was filed on the 14th July	 1954. The respondents resisted the claim made by the appelants on. several grounds. They urged that the suit was bad for non joinder of necessary parties; that the permission to sue granted to the appellants by the Commissioner was not valid in law; that the rent note executed by them was not admissible in evidence; and that the notice given by the appellants under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was also invalid in law. On these pleadings	 the learned Munsif	 Chandausi	 framed appropriate issues. Evidence wag led by both the parties in support of their respective contentions. The learned trial Judge recorded findings in favour of the appellants on all the issues and decreed their suit with costs on the 25th March	 1955. The respondents then preferred an appeal (Civil Appeal No. 213 of 1955) in the Court of the District Judge	 Moradabad	 and urged that the findings recorded by the trial Judge were erroneous and asked for the reversal of the decree passed by him. The learned District Judge rejected the respondents ' contentions and confirmed the decree under appeal on the 2nd June	 1955. That took the respondents to the High Court at Allahabad in second appeal (No. 1106 of 1955). The learned single Judge of the said High Court who heard this appeal	 upheld the respondents ' contention that the permission granted by the Commissioner under section 3(3) of the Act was invalid in law; and so	 he came to the conclusion that the appellants ' suit was incompetent. This judgment was delivered on the 26th July	 1956. The learned Judge	 however	 allowed the appellants leave to file a Letters Patent Appeal. The Letters Patent Appeal was placed before a larger Bench of three learned Judges of the High Court	 because it was thought that the question raised by the appellants was of some importance. On the question as to whether the permission granted by the Commissioner was valid or not	 the learned Judges who heard the appeal differed. Two of the learned Judges held that the said permission was invalid	 whilst the third learned Judge held that it was valid. In accordance with the majority opinion the Letters Patent appeal.preferred by the appellants was dismissed on the 13th September	 1960. The appellants then applied for 556 and obtained a certificate from the High Court and it is with the said certificate that this appeal has come to this Court. At the hearing of this appeal	 the first point which Mr. Goyal for the appellants has raised for our decision is that the courts below had no jurisdiction to consider the question about the validity of the permission granted by the Commissioner. He contends that section 3 of the Act provides a self contained code for the grant of permission	 and all questions in relation to the grant or refusal of the said permission have to be decided by the appropriate authorities constituted under the Act. Once the question about the grant of permission asked for by a landlord is determined by the appropriate authorities	 their decision is final and cannot be questioned in a civil court. In support of this argument	 Mr. Goyal has based himself on the provisions contained in section 3 (4) and section 16 	of the Act. Section 3 (4) provides that the order of the Commissioner under sub section (3) shall subject to any order passed by the State Government under section 7 F	 be final. Similarly	 section 16 provides that no order made under this Act by the State Government or the District Magistrate shall be called in question in any Court. The combined effect of these two provisions	 according to Mr. Goyal	 is to exclude the jurisdiction of the civil courts to entertain the question about the correctness	 propriety or legality of the order passed by the Commissioner in the present case whereby he granted permission to the appellants to bring the present suit. In order to appreciate the validity of this argument	 it is necessary to consider the scheme of the	 relevant provisions of the Act. Section 3(1) reads thus.: "Subject to any order passed under sub section (3) no suit shall	 without the permission of the District Magistrate	 be filed in any Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation	 except on one or more of the following grounds". It is unnecessary to cite the said grounds	 because it is not disputed that the ground of personal need set out by the appellants justifies their claim for the respondents ' ejectment. Section 3(2) and (3) as they stood at the relevant time read thus : "(2) The party aggrieved by the order of District Magistrate granting or refusing to grant the permission referred to in sub section (1) may	 within 30days from the date of the order or the date on which it is communi 5 57 cated to him	 whichever is later	 apply to the Commissioner to revise the order. (3) The Commissioner shall	 as far as may be	 hear the application within six weeks from the date of its making	 and	 if he is satisfied that the District Magistrate has acted illegally or with material irregularity or has wrongly refused to act	 he may confirm or set aside. the order of the District Magistrate". We have already referred to section 3(4). It would thus be seen that the scheme of section 3 is that if a landlord wants to bring a suit to eject his tenant	 he has to apply to the District Magistrate for permission to do so. The District Magistrate may grant or refuse to grant such permission. After the District Magistrate makes an order on the landlord 's application	 the party aggrieved by the order can apply in revision to the Commissioner within 30 days; and the Commissioner	 in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction	 has to deal with the revision application under section 3(3). If he is satisfied that the District Magistrate has acted illegally or with material irregularity	 or has wrongly refused to act	 he can make an appropriate order; and the order thus made by him is final under sub section (4)	 subject to any order that the State Government may pass under section 7 F of the Act. Section 7 E provides for the revisional powers of the State Government in very wide terms. It reads thus : "The State Government may call for the record of any case granting or refusing to grant permission for the filing of a suit for eviction referred to in section 3 or requiring any accommodation to be let or not to be let to any person under section 7 and may make such order as appears to it necessary for the ends of justice". It is clear that the power conferred on the State Government by section 7 F to revise the orders passed by the Commissioner under section 3 (3 ) is very wide. In the first place	 the State Government need not necessarily be moved by any party in that behalf. It may call for the record suo moto and it can exercise its powers in the interests of justice. In other words	 whenever it is brought to the notice of the State Government either by a party aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner	 or otherwise	 that the order passed by the Commissioner is unfair or unjust	 the State Government may in the ends of justice pass an appropriate order revising the order made by the Commissioner. That	 in brief	 is the 558 scheme of. the relevant provisions of the Act relating to the grant of permission to the landlord to sue his tenant in ejectment. Mr. Goyal contends that the words of section 3 (4) read with section 16 are clear and unambiguous	 and they indicate that the jurisdiction of the civil courts is completely excluded in relation to the question as to whether permission has been properly or validly granted or refused by the appropriate authorities exercising their powers under the relevant provisions of the Act. It cannot be seriously disputed that the jurisdiction of the civil courts to deal with civil causes can be excluded by the Legislature by special Acts which deal with special subject matters; but the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil courts must be made by a statutory provision which expressly provides for it	 or which necessarily and inevitably leads to that inference. In other words	 the jurisdiction of the civil courts can be excluded by a statutory provision which is either express in that behalf or which irresistibly leads to that inference. One of the points which is often treated as relevant in dealing with the question about the exclusion of civil courts ' jurisdiction	 is whether the special statute which	 it is urged	 excludes such jurisdiction	 has used clear and unambiguous words indicating that intention. Another test which is applied is : does the said statute provide for an adequate and satisfactory alternative remedy to a party that may be aggrieved by the relevant order under its material provisions ? Applying these two tests	 it does appear that the words used in section 3 (4) and section 16 are clear. Section 16 in terms provides that the order made under this Act to which the said section applies shall not be called in question in any court. this is an express provision excluding the civil courts ' jurisdiction. Section 3 (4) does not expressly exclude the jurisdiction of 'the civil courts	 but	 in the context	 the inference that the civil courts ' jurisdiction is intended to be excluded	 appears to be inescapable. Therefore	 we are satisfied that Mr. Goyal is right in contending that the jurisdiction of the civil courts is excluded in relation to matters covered by the orders included within the provisions of section 3 (4) and section 16. This conclusion	 however	 does not necessarily mean that the plea against the validity of the order passed by the District Magistrate	 or the Commissioner	 or the State Government	 can never be raised in a civil court. In our opinion	 the bar created by the relevant provisions of the Act excluding the jurisdiction of the civil courts cannot operate in cases where the plea raised before the civil court goes to the root of the matter and would	 if upheld	 559 lead to the conclusion that the impugned order is a nullity. Take		 for instance	 the case of an order purported to have been passed by a District Magistrate who is not a District Magistrate in law. If it is shown by a party impeaching the validity of the order in a civil court that the order was passed by a person who was not a District Magistrate	 the order in law would be a nullity	 and such a plea cannot be ruled out on the ground of the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court. Similarly	 if an order granting permission to a landlord is passed by a District Magistrate of one District when the property in question is situated in another district outside his jurisdiction	 a party would be entitled to urge before a civil court that the permission purported to have been granted by the District Magistrate is wholly invalid and a nullity in law. Let us take another case to illustrate the position. If section 3 had provided that before a District Magistrate grants permission to the landlord to sue his tenant	 he shall issue notice to the tenant and give him an opportunity to represent his case before the application of the. landlord is dealt with on. the merits; and in the face of such a statutory provision	 the District Magistrate grants permission ex parte without issuing notice to the tenant; in such a case	 the failure of the District Magistrate to comply with the mandatory provision% prescribed in that behalf	 would render the order passed by him completely invalid	 and a plea that an order has been passed by the District Magistrate without complying with the mandatory provision of the Act	 would be open for examination before a civil court. Likewise	 in the absence of such a statutory provision	 if it is held that the proceedings before the appropriate. authorities contemplated by section 3 are in the nature of quasi judcial proceedings and they must be tried in accordance with the principles of natural justice	 and it is shown that in a given case	 an order has been passed without notice to the party affected by such order	 it would be open to the said party to contend that an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is a nullity and it existence should be ignored by the civil court. Such a plea cannot	 in our opinion	 be excluded by reason of the provisions contained in section 3 (4) and section 16 of the Act. In this connection	 we may incidentally refer to a recent deciSion of this Court in Lala Shri Bhagwan & A nr. vs Shri Ram Chand and Another(1). In that case	 this Court upheld the decision of the Allahabad High Court which had set aside the order passed by the appropriate authority under the relevant provisions the Act on the ground that in passing the said order	 principles of natural (1) ; 560 justice had not been followed. The view which was taken by this Court in that case was that the proceedings taken by a landlord under section 3 are proceedings of a quasi judicial nature and the appropriate authorities	 in exercising their powers in relation to such proceedings	 must act in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It must	 however	 be made clear that in that 	case	 the question as to whether such a plea can be raised in a civil court having regard to the bar created by sections 3 (4) and 16 of the Act	 was not raised and has not been considered. We ought to point out that the provisions contained in sec tions 3(4) and 16 undoubtedly raise a bar against pleas which 	challenge the correctness or propriety of the orders in question. The merits of the order are concluded by the decision of the 	appropriate authorities under the Act and they cannot be agitated in a civil court. But where a plea seeks to prove that the impugned order is a nullity in the true legal sense	 that is a plea which does not come within the mischief of the bar created by sections 3(4) and 16 of the Act. Similar questions have often been considered by judicial 	decisions to some of which we will now refer. In The Secretary 	of State for India in Council vs Roy Jatindra Nath Chowdhury and A nr.	 (1) dealing with the effect of section 6 of the Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Act (IX of 1847)	 the Privy Council observed that the finality of the orders specified in the said section had to be read subject to two conditions; the first was that the said orders should not suffer from any fundamental irregularity	 that is to say	 "a defiance or noncompliance with the essentials of the procedure"; and the second condition was that the alleged defiance or non compliance	 with the essentials of the procedure must be strictly proved by the party alleging it. This decision show that if the special statute prescribes certain mandatory conditions subject to which the orders in question can be passed	 and the said mandatory provisions are violated	 the validity of the said orders 	can be challenged in a civil proceeding. Similarly	 if principles 	of natural justice are not complied with	 the orders passed in violation of the said principles would be wholly inoperative in law and their validity can be impeached in civil proceedings. The same principle has been emphasised by the Privy Council in Secretary of State vs Mask & Co.(1). In that case	 though the words used in sections 188 and 191 of the Sea Customs Act (1878) were held to exclude the jurisdiction of the civil courts	 (1) A.I.R. 1924 P.C. 175. (2) 67 1. A. 222 561 the Privy Council observed that even where jurisdiction is excluded	 the civil courts have jurisdiction "to examine into cases where the provisions of the Act have not been complied with	 or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure". This latter clause presumably covers cases where orders are passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. In M/s Kamala Mills Ltd. vs The State of Bombay(1)	 while dealing with a similar point	 this Court has considered the effect of the two decisions of the Privy Council	 one in the case of Mask & Co.(1)	 and the other in Raleigh Investment Company Ltd. vs Governor General in Council(3). The conclusion reached by this Court in M/s. Kamala Mill 's case(1) also supports the view which we are taking in the present appeal. Therefore	 while upholding the contention raised by Mr. Goyal that the jurisdiction of the civil courts is barred	 we wish to make it clear that this contention will not avail Mr. Goyal if the respondents ' plea	 if upheld	 would render the permission granted by the Commissioner totally invalid land a nullity. The second point which then calls for our decision in the present appeal is: is the permission granted by the Commissioner without jurisdiction and as such	 a nullity ? The majority decision of the Allahabad High Court is in favour of the respondents; and Mr. Goyal 's argument is that the said decision is inconsistent with the true scope and effect of the provisions prescribed by section 3 (3) of the Act. The decision of this point lies within a very narrow compass. The majority decision is that the jurisdiction conferred on the Commissioner under section 3(3) is exactly similar to the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It will be recalled that. 115 of the Code confers revisional jurisdiction on the High Court to make such order as it thinks fit in a given case	 if the subordinate court whose order is brought before the High Court under section 115 "appears (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law	 or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested	 or (c) to have acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity". There is no doubt that the requirements of clauses (a)	 (b) & (c) all centre round the question about the jurisdiction of the subordinate court	 and the view which has been accepted by the majority decision under appeal is that the same limitation must be imported in construing (1) ; (3) 74 T. A. 50	 at pp. 62 63. (2) 67 I.A. 222. 56 2 the scope of the authority and power conferred on the Commissioner by section 3(3). Let us examine whether this conclusion is right. In construing the provision of section 3 (3)	 one factor which is patent is that it 	does not refer to any considerations of jurisdiction at all. In fact	 it is not easy to conceive of a limitation as to jurisdiction being relevant in section 3(3)	 because the said provision deals with .orders passed by District Magistrates	 and the District Magistrates normally would have jurisdiction to deal with applications made by landlords. But quite apart from this aspect of the matter	 the words used in section 3(3) are unambiguous. There are 'three 	categories of cases in which the Commissioner can interfere with the order passed by the District Magistrate. If the District Magistrate has acted illegally	 the Commissioner can interfere with his order; so can he interfere with the order if the District Magistrate has acted with material irregularity; and lastly	 the Commissioner can interfere with the order of the District Magistrate if the District Magistrate has wrongly refused to act. This last clause is wide enough to empower the Commissioner to correct the error committed by the District Magistrate in making an order brought before it; quite clearly if the District Magistrate refuses to grant permission and the Commissioner thinks that in doing so	 he has committed an error	 that would be a case where the District Magistrate has wrongly refused to act	 and that would give the	Commissioner jurisdiction to exercise his revisional power. It is significant that the revisional application can be made to the Commissioner only against orders passed by the District Magistrate granting or refusing to grant such permission. It is	 we think	 fallacious to assume that a party can move the Commissioner under section 3(3) in cases where the District Magistrate just refuse to make an order on the application made by the landlord for permission to bring a suit against the tenant. If a District Magistrate just does not deal with the application and passes no	 order on it	 the party aggrieved may be justified in applying for an appropriate writ to the High Court or adopt some other suitable remedy in law; but a revision in such a case does not appear to be competent under section 3 (3). Besides	 the illegality or the irregularity to which section 3 (3) refers need not necessarily be correlated with questions of jurisdic tion. Therefore	 we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in introducing a limitation pertaining to questions of jurisdiction in determining the scope of the width of the revisional 	visional power conferred on the Commissioner by section 3 (3). That is why it must be held that the High Court was in error in coming to the conclu 563 sion that the permission granted by the Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 3 k 3) is invalid in law. As we have already emphasised	 the only plea which can be raised before a civil court in relation to orders passed under the relevant provisions of the Act can be a plea which	 if sustained	 would render the order wholly invalid and as such	 a nullity. No other plea can be raised	 because all other pleas are barred by sections 3 (4) and 16 of the Act. In this connection	 we may incidentally point out that by a subsequent amendment of section 3(3)	 the Legislature has made it clear that its intention is to confer wide jurisdiction on the Commissioner. The amendment in question has been introduced by Act 17 of 1954. The amended provision reads thus : " 'The Commissioner shall hear the application made under sub section (2)	 as far as may be	 within six weeks from the date of making it	 and he may	 if he is not satisfied as to the correctness	 legality or propriety of the order passed by the District Magistrate or as to the regularity of proceedings held before him	 alter or reverse his order	 or make such other order as may be just and proper". There is no doubt that under this amended provision	 the Commissioner can deal not only with the legality	 but also with the correctness and propriety of the order passed by the District Magistrate. In our opinion	 the position about the Comissioner 's powers was not different even under the unamended provision. It may also be relevant to point out that the power conferred on the State Government at all material times by section 7 F was very wide. As we have already indicated	 in exercise of its powers under section 7 F	 the State Government can pass such orders as appear to it to be necessary in the ends of justice. Therefore	 there is no doubt that the relevant provisions of the Act did not intend	 even prior to the amendment of 1954	 to limit the jurisdiction of the Commissioner only to cases where irregularity or illegality bad been committed by the District Magistrate in granting or refusing	 to grant permission. The result is	 the appeal is allowed	 the order passed by the High Court in the Letters Patent Appeal is set aside	 and that of the District Court restored with costs throughout. Appeal allowed.

The appellants sued the respondents their tenants for ejectment from their shop. They had applied to the District Magistrate for the requisite permission to institute the suit under section 3(1) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. When the permission was refused they moved the Commissioner in his revisional jurisdiction under section 3(2) of the Act and the Commissioner gave the permission. The Munsif decreed the suit. This was confirmed in appeal by the District Judge. The High Court	 on appeals	 upheld the respondents contention that the permission granted by the Commissioner under section 3 (3) of the Act	 was invalid in law	 and so concluded that the appellants ' suit was incompetent. In this Court the appellants contended (i) sections 3(4) and 16 of the Act totally excludes the jurisdiction of civil courts in relation to the question as to whether permission has been properly or validly granted or refused by the appropriate authority exercising their powers under the relevant provisions of the Act	 and (ii) the decision of the High Court that the permission granted by the Commissioner was invalid in law was inconsistent with the true scope and effect of the provisions prescribed by section 3(3) of the Act. HELD:(i) Section 3 (4) and 16 of the Act create a bar against pleas which challenge the correctness or propriety of the orders in question. [558 G] The two tests	 which are often considered relevant in dealing with the question about the exclusion of civil courts ' jurisdiction are (a) whether the special statute which excludes such jurisdiction has used clear and unambi guous words indicating that intention; and (b) does that statute provide for an adequate and satisfactory alternative remedy to a party that may be aggrieved by the relevant order under its material provisions. Applying these tests the inference is inescapable that the jurisdiction of the civil courts is intended to be excluded. [558 D G] This conclusion	 however	 does not necessarily mean that the plea against the validity of order passed by. the District Magistrate	 or the Commissioner	 or the State can never be raised in a civil court. The bar excluding the jurisdiction of civil courts cannot operate in cases where the plea raised before the civil court goes to the root of the matter and would	 if upheld	 lead to the conclusion that the impugned order is a nullity. [558 G H] (ii)The High Court was not justified	 in introducing a limitation pertaining to questions of jurisdiction in determining the scopeof the width of the revisional power conferred on the Commissionerby section 3 (3). There are three categories of cases in which the commissioner 'can interfere with the order passed by the District Magistrate :(a) if the District Magistrate has acted illegally; (b) if he has acted with material irregularity and(c) if he has wrongly refused to act. This last ground is wide enough 5 54 to empower the Commissioner to correct the error committed by District Magistrate in making an order brought before it; clearly if the District Magistrate refused to grant permission and the Commissioner thinks that in doing so	 he has committed an error	 that would be a case where the District Magistrate "has wrongly refused to act" and that would give the Commissioner jurisdiction to exercise his revisional powers. [562 C E	 H]