JUDGMENT B. Upadhya, J. - This is a Defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for possession over a shop in the city of Saharanpur and for arrears of rent. There is no dispute about the rent now and the only question that has survived and come up for decision relates to the decree of ejectment passed by the trial court and affirmed by the lower appellate court. 2. It appears that the permission taken u/s 3 of the UP Control of Rent and Eviction Act was granted by the Addl. Distt. Magistrate of Saharanpur. The Defendant challenged the propriety of this permission by filing a revision application before the Distt. Magistrate of Saharanpur who declined to interfere. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the permission relied upon by the Plaintiff is not valid, for it was not granted by the Distt. Magistrate but by an officer to whom the Distt. Magistrate had not given the full authority required by law to be given. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Distt. Magistrate, Saharanpur reads as follows: In supersession of all previous orders on the subject I, R.P. Sahai, Distt. Magistrate of Saharanpur make the following order under the UP (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (III) of 1947 as amended by Act XLIV of 1944...while retaining to myself the powers to revise any order passed by my nominees, if necessary, I nominate the following officers u/s 2(4) of the Act and authorise them to exercise powers under the provision of the various sections of the Act in the area of Saharanpur Distt. as noted against them below: (a) to grant permission to sue in the civil court for eviction of tenant from any accommodation u/s 3 of the Act: Sub-Divisional Officer, Roorkee, for the whole sub-division and Addl. Distt. Magistrate for the rest of the district. 4. Learned Counsel contends that the authority given to the Additional District Magistrate to grant permission within the meaning of Section 2(4) of the Act was not complete inasmuch as the District Magistrate had reserved the powers to revise the order that might be passed by the Additional District Magistrate. It is contended that the authority must be to act as the District Magistrate would himself have acted. It is contended that the authority must be to act as the District Magistrate would himself have acted. The authority should, therefore, be complete but the reservation effected by the District Magistrate indicated that he did not give to the Additional District Magistrate all the power that he had. The language of the order, however, does not support this contention. When the District Magistrate refers to Section 2(4) of the Act he appears to be referring to Section 2(d) of the Act. This provision defines the expression "District Magistrate" as follows: "District Magistrate" includes an officer authorised by the District Magistrate to perform any of his functions under this Act. 5. The obvious intention of the District Magistrate was to give such authority to the Additional District Magistrate as is contemplated u/s 2(d) of the Act. He also says that he authorised the officers named by him 'to exercise power under the various sections of the Act...as noted against them below'. It cannot, therefore, be seriously doubted that by passing this order the District Magistrate intended to authorise the Additional District Magistrate to exercise the power to grant permission u/s 3 of the Act. What appears to raise a doubt is the earlier expression 'retaining to myself the power to revise any order passed by my nominees, if necessary'. The District Magistrate seems to have assumed that besides possessing the power to authorise the Additional District Magistrate to perform any of his functions under the Act as mentioned in Section 2(d), he also had the power to revise the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate. The use of the word "retaining" indicates that he thought that he did have the power which he chose to retain. It is clear, however, that in law he had no such power. Retention of, or any attempt to retain, such power, therefore, was evidently futile. This portion of the order, could not be said, therefore, to have any legal effect. The authority given by the District Magistrate was, in the circumstances, complete and valid. The attempt 'to retain' the power of revision was obviously an attempt to retain a power which he never had. 6. In the above view of the matter I am of opinion that the permission relied upon by the Plaintiff was valid. The appeal must, therefore fail and is dismissed with costs.