JUDGMENT R.N. Gurtu, J. - This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment brought by the landlord against a tenant. 2. The Trial Court decreed the suit for ejectment and for arrears of rent. 3. Upon appeal, the appeal has been dismissed. 4. This is a case in which the landlord had obtained the permission of the Disitt. Magistrate to eject before the filed the suit in civil court. But before the filed the said suit, a revision had been filed before the Commr. and was pending before him. Learned Counsel for the Appellant urges that having regard to the relevant darts of Section 3 of the UP Control of Rent and Eviction Act (Act No. III of 1947) this suit could not be filed until the revision before the Commr. was disposed of. In view of the submission, it becomes necessary to quote the relevant parts of Section 3, which are as under: (1) Subject to any order passed under Sub-section (3) no suit shall, without the permission of the Distt. 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: (a) that the tenant is in arrears of rent for more than three months and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month of the service upon him of a notice of demand. etc. 5. Sub-S (2) of Section 3 runs as follows: Where any application has been made to the Distt. Magistrate for permission to sue a tenant for eviction from any accommodation and the Distt. Magistrate grants or refuses to grant the permission, the party aggrieved by his order may within 30 days from the date on which the order is communicated to his apply to the Commissioner to revise the order. Sub-section (3) of the said Section runs as under: 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 Distt. Magistrate or as to the regularity of proceeding held before him after or reverse his order, or make such other order as may be just and proper. Magistrate or as to the regularity of proceeding held before him after or reverse his order, or make such other order as may be just and proper. Sub-section (4) of the aforesaid, section runs as under: The order of the Commissioner under Sub-section (3) shall, subject to any order passed by the State Government u/s 7F be final. It is also necessary to quote Section 7F of the Act which runs as follows: The State Government may call for the record of any case granting or refusing to grant permission for he 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 u/s 7 for directing a person to vacate any accommodation u/s 7A and may make such order as appears to it necessary for the ends of justice. 6. It will appear from Section 3(2) quoted above that a revision can be taken to the Commissioner within 30 days and it appears from Sub-section (3) that the Commissioner can after or reverse the order of the Distt. Magistrate or "make such other order as may be just and proper." The State Government by virtue of Section 7F can then call for the record of any case granting or refusing him the permission and interfere with the order of the Commissioner and it may itself make such order as appears necessary to for the ends of justice. Thus the Act provides a machinery for revision and the question is whether a land lord is precluded from filing a suit even though he has obtained a permission from the Distt. Magistrate, while the revision before the Commissioner is yet pending The wording of Section 3(1) is to the following effect: Subject to any order passed under Sub-section (3) no suit shall, without the permission of the Distt. Magistrate 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... 7. What I have to decide is whether the words "subject to any order passed under Sub-section (3)" mean that if a revision has been filed the landlord must wait until a final order has been passed under Sub-section (3) or whether in the absence of any interim order suspending the Distt. 7. What I have to decide is whether the words "subject to any order passed under Sub-section (3)" mean that if a revision has been filed the landlord must wait until a final order has been passed under Sub-section (3) or whether in the absence of any interim order suspending the Distt. Magistrate's permission under Sub-section (3) he can file a suit on the basis of the permission of the Distt. Magistrate granted to him. Now Section 3(3) shows that the Commissioner may make "such other order as may be just and proper." This seems to give to the Commissioner the power not only to make final orders altering or reversing the Distt. Magistrate's orders, but to make interim orders also and it seems to give to the Commissioner power to make an interim order whereby the Distt. Magistrate's order granting permission would become ineffective pending the disposal of the revision before Commissioner. If such an order was passed, then there would be an order to which the order of the Distt. Magistrate would be subject and, in consequence, the permission would become ineffective and the suit could not be filed I do not consider that the words "subject to any order passed under Sub. 3(3)" mean that while the revisions is pending the permission must be deemed to be ineffective and no suit can be filed. If the intention was to make the permission of the Distt. Magistrate ineffectual, it could easily have been said that pending the disposal of the revision, no suit could be filed. Section 3(3) of the Act no doubt indicates that the Commissioner can expeditiously decide the revision before him and he is excepted to do so within six weeks but the period of six weeks is not an absolute one and the Commissioner may well take time in excess of six weeks and, in these circumstances, it seems to me that it could not have been intended that even without any interim order, from the Commissioner, the effectiveness of the Distt. Magistrate's permission would be held in abeyance pending the disposal of the revision. 8. This is the principal point raised before me on which my adjudication has been invited. I do not uphold the contention of the Appellant and consequently I dismiss this appeal with costs. 9. Magistrate's permission would be held in abeyance pending the disposal of the revision. 8. This is the principal point raised before me on which my adjudication has been invited. I do not uphold the contention of the Appellant and consequently I dismiss this appeal with costs. 9. Leave to file a special appeal is asked for an granted The stay order, if any, is discharged.