islam and ors. Vs. Gopal Dubey and ors.

islam and ors. vs Gopal Dubey and ors.

Disposition Appeal Allowed Court Supreme Court of India Decided Jan 25, 1994

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/664840

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/664840
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judge: S. Mohan and; M.K. Mukherjee, JJ.
Decided On: Jan 25, 1994
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 1894 of 1980
Subject: Tenancy
Disposition: Appeal Allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- [ S. Mohan and; M.K. Mukherjee, JJ.] - Rent Control and Eviction — U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 — Section. 3(a) to (f) — Permission for filing eviction suit under — Tenant continuing after expiry of contractual period of tenancy becoming statutory tenant — ...

Key legal issue: Tenancy
Outcome / disposition: Appeal Allowed
Acts & sections: U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 - Section 3(a) to (f); principal Act - Section 3

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

islam and ors.

Respondent

Gopal Dubey and ors.

Legal References

Acts: U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 - Section 3(a) to (f); principal Act - Section 3
Reported In: (1994)4SCC459

Excerpt

- [ s. mohan and; m.k. mukherjee, jj.] - rent control and eviction - u.p. (temporary) control of rent and eviction act, 1947 - section. 3(a) to (f) - permission for filing eviction suit under - tenant continuing after expiry of contractual period of tenancy becoming statutory tenant - for filing suit for his eviction, dm's permission not needed in view of expln. added by u.p. act 44 of 1948 -- after hearing both the learned counsel, we are clearly of the view that the findings of the high court upsetting that of the trial court and the lower appellate court, cannot be supported. no doubt, in pradesh kumar bajpai v. benod behari sarkar1 it was held that such a permission may be necessary. appeal allowed.s. mohan and; m.k. mukherjee, jj.1. after hearing both the learned counsel, we are clearly of the view that the findings of the high court upsetting that of the trial court and the lower appellate court, cannot be supported. once the original period of tenancy namely, eleven months expires, it is the united provinces (temporary) control of rent and eviction act, 1947, that takes over. the result is the rights of the landlord and tenant are governed by this act. in other words, the tenant becomes a statutory tenant. if that be so, the only question would be whether the permission for instituting a suit under clauses (a) to (f) of section 3 of the act, the permission of the district magistrate is necessary. no doubt, in pradesh kumar bajpai v. benod behari sarkar1 it was held that such a permission may be necessary. unfortunately, the attention of the court was not drawn to u.p. act 44 of 1948 which stated as follows :“u.p. act xliv of 1948 added the following after the explanation :‘for the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that under section 3 of the principal act no permission of the district magistrate is or be deemed to ever have been necessary for filing a suit for eviction against a tenant or any of the grounds mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) of the said section.’ ”2. therefore, the judgment of the high court has to be set aside. it is accordingly set aside and the civil appeal is allowed with costs.

Full Judgment

S. Mohan and; M.K. Mukherjee, JJ.

1. After hearing both the learned counsel, we are clearly of the view that the findings of the High Court upsetting that of the trial court and the lower appellate court, cannot be supported. Once the original period of tenancy namely, eleven months expires, it is the United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, that takes over. The result is the rights of the landlord and tenant are governed by this Act. In other words, the tenant becomes a statutory tenant. If that be so, the only question would be whether the permission for instituting a suit under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 3 of the Act, the permission of the District Magistrate is necessary. No doubt, in Pradesh Kumar Bajpai v. Benod Behari Sarkar1 it was held that such a permission may be necessary. Unfortunately, the attention of the Court was not drawn to U.P. Act 44 of 1948 which stated as follows :

“U.P. Act XLIV of 1948 added the following after the Explanation :

‘For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that under Section 3 of the principal Act no permission of the District Magistrate is or be deemed to ever have been necessary for filing a suit for eviction against a tenant or any of the grounds mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) of the said section.’ ”

2. Therefore, the judgment of the High Court has to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside and the civil appeal is allowed with costs.

Same Court & Year Supreme Court of India · 1994 Same Parties islam and ors. vs Gopal Dubey and ors. Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge S. Mohan and; M.K. Mukherjee, JJ. Acts & Sections U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 - Sec...

Tenancy