JUDGMENT J. Sahai, J. - This special appeal is directed against the judgment of D.S. Mathur, J. dated 28.4.1961, allowing writ petition No. 2629 of 1959 filed by the Respondent No. 1, Sri. Rabindra Nath Mitra, an Advocate practicing in this Court (hereinalter ieferred to a Mitra) 2. From the year 1948 Mitra has been occupying a part of bungalow No. l2, Stanley Road, Allahabad, as tenanl Originally one SC Mukerji was th ower landlord of the bungalow. Sometime in June 1934 he sold the bangaloi to Sri Mohan Lal Khattri (hereinafte referred to as Khattri) Respondent No. 2 in the writ petition and the appellan before us. On 15.2.1956, Khattri mad an application u/s 3 of the U.P. (Temp Control of Rent and Eviction Act here inafter referred to as the Act) to the DM, Allahabad seeking permission (sic) sue Mitra for ejectment from the bungalow on the ground that he required the accommodation for his own us The application came up for heari(sic) before the Addl. Distt. Magistrate, w(sic) was exercising defeated powers under the Act, and by means of the order dated 21.5.1956 he dismissed the application. Khattri filed a revision application before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, which was heard by the Addl. Commr. The revision application was also dismissed on 22.12.1956. Thereafter Khattri moved the State Government under the provisions of Section 7F of the Act. The State Government without sendinsr for the stcord of the case granted the necessary permission. 3. That permission of the State Government was challenged in writ petition No. 2406 of 1957. James, J., who heard the petition allowed the same. The operative portion of the order of James, J. reads: Accordingly I allow this petition with costs, quash the State Government's order dated 22.8.1957, and dijrect Mr. Khattri to refrain from filing any eviction suit against Mr. Mitra. If any suit has already been filled it shall stand dismissed." James, J. allowed the writ petition on the ground that the State Government had not sent for the record before passing the impugned order. 4. Khattri then made an application u/s 7F of the Act to the State government for according the permission after sending for the record. Mitra appeared before the State Government and filed an objection stating that the permission prayed for be not accorded. 4. Khattri then made an application u/s 7F of the Act to the State government for according the permission after sending for the record. Mitra appeared before the State Government and filed an objection stating that the permission prayed for be not accorded. It is, however, admitted that no objection was taken by Mitra before the State Government to the effect that it had no jurisdiction to hear the second revision application made by Khattri because the State Government had become functus officio once it had already exhausted its power by granting permission which had been quahsed by this Court. The State Government again granted permission to Khattri to file a suit for the ejectment of Mltra. 5. Mitra then filed writ petition No. 2629 of 1959 which came up for (sic)ring before Mathur, J. who, as (sic)eady stated earlier, allowed the (sic)e on 28th April 1961. 6. The submission before Mathur, J. was that the order of James, J. dated 28.11.1958 in writ No. 2406 of 1957 created a permanent bar against the State Government granting permission to Khattri for filing a suit for the ejectment of Mitra. While considering the submission Mathur, J. observed as follows: To sum up, while judging the effect of the decision in writ petition No. 2406 of 1957 we shall have to consider the operative part of the judgment only and the operative part must be read together and not piecemeal. The effect of the Court's order by which writ petition No. 2406 of 1957 was allowed was that Respondent No. 2 could not be granted the permission to sue for ejectment of the Petitioner and at the same time the order dated 22.8.1957 of the State Government was quashed Respondent No. 2 could sue for eviction if the State Government granted the permission contemplated by Section 3 of the Act in pursuance of the power conferred on the State Government u/s 7F of the Act. When Respondent No. 2 could not file a suit for eviction, it would mean that the necessary permission u/s 3 could not be granted by the State Government. In other words, not only was the order dated 22.8.1957 of the State Government quashed, but the proceeding also stood quashed and the State Government could not pass a fresh order u/s 7F of the Act. In other words, not only was the order dated 22.8.1957 of the State Government quashed, but the proceeding also stood quashed and the State Government could not pass a fresh order u/s 7F of the Act. The above view is being adopted on strict interpretation of the judgment in writ petition No. 2406 of 1957, though it must be observed that it was, probably, by inadvertence that certain words were omitted in the operative part ot the judgment. When this Court did not consider it desirable to quash the proceeding pending before the State Government, no direction would have been given that Respondent No. 2 could not file an eviction suit against the Petitioner. Apparently, what was meant was that Respondent No. 2 could not file an eviction suit on the basis of the order dated 22.8. 1957 of the State Government; but by inadvertence the words "on the basis of the impugned order" or similar orders were omitted and were not incorporated in the operative part of the judgment." (Underlined-herein bold letters-by us). With great respect of the learned single Judge we are unable to hold that the effect of the operative part of the order of James, J. dated 28.11.1958 was to restrain the State Government from ever according permission to Khattri to file a suit for ejectment of Mitra from bungalow No. 12, Stanley Road, Allahabad. The only question that was submitted before James J. and which he was competent to decide was whether or not the permission granted by the State Government was valid in view of the circumstance that before passing that order the State Government had not sent for the record of the case. Obviously James J. had no jurisdiction to issue a perpetual in junction for all time, because such an injunction was completely beyond the scope of writ petition No. 2406 of 1957. 7. We have seen a copy of writ petition No. 2406 of 1957. Obviously James J. had no jurisdiction to issue a perpetual in junction for all time, because such an injunction was completely beyond the scope of writ petition No. 2406 of 1957. 7. We have seen a copy of writ petition No. 2406 of 1957. The prayer contained in that writ petition is as follows: (i) to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondent No. 1 to bring up its order dated the 22nd August, 1957, for being quashed, (ii) to issue an appropriate direction to the Respondent No. 2 to refrain from filing a suit for eviction of the Petitioner on the basis of the impugned order (iii) to issue an interim direction to the Respondent No. 2 not to file a suit for the eviction of the Petitioner on the strength of the impugned order during the pendency of this writ petition, (iv) to grant any other or further relief which may be considered just and convenient in the circumstances of the case, (v) to award cost of this petition to the Petitioner." (Underlined-herein bold letters-by us). It is clear from the relief's claimed in the writ petition that no prayer was made for the issue of an injunction against the State Government restraining it from according permission to the Appellant at any time in future. 8. The operative portion of every judgment or order has pot to be construed in the light of the facts alleged and the submissions made in the case before the judge or the officer who passed the order No order can be construed bereft of the context of the facts involved in the case and the submissions made before the Court. In the present case, having carefully perused writ petition No. 2406 of 1957 and the order of James J. dated 28-11 1958, we are satisfied that there was no dispute in respect of the right of the State Government to issue a fresh order of permission to Khattri to file a suit for the ejectment of Mitra and at no time it was either alleged or argued that the State Government should be restrained from passing such an order. Consequently we have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the operative portion of the order of James, J. is confined to the facts of the case before him and must relate to those facts and the State Government was not restrained for all time from granting permission to Khattri to file a suit for the ejectment of Mitra. Therefore, we agree with Mathur, J. in his conclusion that what was meant by James J. was that Khattri "could not file an eviction suit on the basis of the order dated 22.8.1957, of the State Government", but are unable to agree with him that the strict construction of the order of James J. would yield the result that the State Government stood restrained for all time from granting the permission. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the view taken by Mathur J. is not correct and this appeal must be allowed. 9. We, therefore, allow this special appeal and set aside the order of Mathur, J dated 28.4.1961 quashing the order of the State Government granting permission to Khattri to file a suit for the ejectment of Mitra from bungalow No. 12, Stanley Road, Allahabad. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs.