Vasudeo Chaube vs Vaidya Nand Kishore

R.S. Bachawat, J.—This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of House No. 612, Mohalla Golpara, Mathura City, by the landlord against the tenant. The Plaintiff Basudeo Chaube applied to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for permission to institute the suit u/s 3(1) of the UP (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. The Officer refused to give him permission on 16-2-1954. The Plaintiff filed a representation to the Government of UP for revision of the order of the Officer u/s 7-F. On this representation, the State Government made an order on 17-10-1955 granting the Plaintiff permission to institute the suit. Thereafter, the Plaintiff instituted the suit for ejectment against the tenant Basdeo Chaube. The Defendant contested the suit on the ground that the order of the State Government was passed in contravention of the principles of natural justice and was invalid. The trial Court decreed the suit. The decree was affirmed in appeal by the Civil Judge, Mathura. In second appeal, the High Court set aside the decree for ejectment and dismissed the suit. The High Court held that the order of the State Government was passed in contravention of the principles of natural justice and was invalid. The present appeal has been filed by the Plaintiff after obtaining special leave.

In Lala Shri Bhagwan v. Ram Chand 1965 AWR 304 SC this Court held that the proceedings u/s 7-F were quasi-judicial in character and the State Government was bound to follow the principles of natural justice before passing an order u/s 7-F. The Court held that a permission to institute a suit by or under an order passed u/s 7-F in contravention of the principles of natural justice was invalid and the suit for ejectment could be successfully defended on this ground.

The High Court held and in our opinion, rightly that the order of the State Government u/s 7-F was passed in contravention of the principles of natured justice. Before making the order the State Government directed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to inspect the premises and to make a report. The Officer inspected the premises on notice to the parties and in their presence and submitted his report to the State Government. The Officer also forwarded to the State Government a copy of an application filed by the tenant Defendant u/s 7-F of the Act. We are unable to accept the contention of the Respondent that the order of the State Government is valid as the Defendant had an opportunity to place his case before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and as the State Government passed this order after perusing the report of the Officer and the application of the tenant u/s 7-F. Before inspecting the premises the Officer issued notice to the parties stating that the premises would be inspected in their presence. The notice did not require the parties to place their respective cases before the Officer. The report of the Officer only shows that he inspected the premises in the presence of the parties and that he found that the re-construction of the premises was necessary and could not be done unless the tenant vacated the premises. Copy of the representation filed before the State Government was not sent to the tenant nor was the tenant given any opportunity to place his case before the State Government. In the circumstances, it is not possible to say that the State Government complied with the principles of natural justice before passing the order u/s 7-F. It follows that the order must be held to be invalid. We are therefore constrained to hold that the High Court rightly dismissed the suit.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.