PURSHOTTAM DAS v. SMT. RAJ MANI DEVI

the order passed by the District Magistrate granting permission to file a suit for ejecting a tenant, the order of If he cancels the permission Commissioner prevails. granted by the District Magistrate there is no effective permission left and the suit instituted by the plaintiff without awaiting his decision must be treated as one filed without any valid permission by the District Magis trate." Having regard to these observations the present suit though validly instituted after obtaining the permission under s. 3 ( l) became incompetent when the permission was revoked by Commissioner under s. 3(3). But the order under s. 3(3) it self was set aside by the State Government under s. 7F during the pendency of the suit. The question is what is the effect of this order under s. 7F. Now, s. 3(4) provides that the order of the Commissioner under s. 3 ( 3) subject to an order passed If the State Government by the State Government under s. 7F. acting under s. 7F sets aside the order of the Commissioner revok ing the permission, the order under s. 3 ( 1) granting permission is revived. The result is that there is an effective permission to institute the suit under s. 3 ( 1) and the suit is validly instituted. tuted after obtaining permission from the Commissioner under render such a suit s. 3 (3). The State Government could not In the present case the incompetent by any order under s. 7F. suit was validly instituted after obtaining permission from Rent Control and Eviction Officer under s. 3 ( 1). The effect of the order of the Commissioner revoking the permission was that the suit became incompetent. The State Government acting under s. 7F had power to revise and set aside the Commissioner's order and restore the permission granted under s. 3 ( 1) so as to make the suit competent. In Bhagwan Das's Case(') the suit was validly c D E The order of the State Government after stating that in interest of justice the house should be available to the landlord for his use, set aside the Commissioner's order under s. 3 ( 3). The result was that the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed under s. 3 ( 1) stood restored. The further direc tion 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 s. 3 of the Act, which will be applicable four months after the date of the order" really means that the penuis sion under s. 3 ( 1) would become effective on the expiry of 4 months. The landlord had thus an effective permission to insti tute the suit under s. 3 ( 1) on the expiry of four months from March 30, 1963, that is to say, as from July 30, 1963. The G H (1) [1969] 2 S.C.R. 297. { ' ' PURSHOTTAM v. RAJ MANI (Bachawat, J.) 579 .--.( A decree in the suit was passed on March 2, 1964. O~ that date the landlord had a valid permission to institute the suit. The 5uit was therefore maintainable. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There will no order as to costs. B Y. P. Appeal dismissed • •