Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1967 DIGILAW 315 (ALL)

Lakshmi Ram v. State of U. P.

1967-09-05

S.D.KHARE

body1967
JUDGMENT S.D. Khare, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the prayer is that the subsequent order passed by the State Government under Sec-7-F of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, on 31st December, 1962, on a review petition of opposite party No. 3 be quashed. 2. The facts leading to this petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioners are the joint owners of the accommodation in question situate on the Station Road in the city of Ballia. Opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 are its tenants. The petitioners wanted to reconstruct the accommodation so that after rebuilding more accommodation could be available to be utilised by the petitioners who needed it for their own use. An application was, therefore, made to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer who granted the permission under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, on 12th February, 1962. The opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 filed a revision application before the Commissioner but the same was dismissed on 27th March, 1962. Thereafter they filed a revision petition before the State Government and that too was dismissed on 20th July, 1962. The State Government, however. granted time to the opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 to find new shops for themselves by 31st October. 1962. The petitioners instituted a suit for the ejectment of opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 on 20th December, 1962. Eleven days after the suit had been instituted the State Government to whom a review petition had been made by opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 reconsidered it decision given on 20th July, 1962, and reversed it by directing that the petitioners were not permitted to eject opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4. 3. Learned counsel for the parties inform me that the suit for ejectment was decreed on 13th March, 1965, and an appeal filed against the said decree was dismissed on 14th September, 1966. A second appeal has however, been filed, which is pending. 4. The facts of the case mentioned in the preceding paragraph are not disputed The main point for consideration in this writ petition is whether the State Government had any power to review its first order passed under Section 7-F of the U.P.(Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, on 20th July, 1962. 5. 4. The facts of the case mentioned in the preceding paragraph are not disputed The main point for consideration in this writ petition is whether the State Government had any power to review its first order passed under Section 7-F of the U.P.(Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, on 20th July, 1962. 5. It is now well-settled that the orders passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the Commissioner and the State Government under Sections 7 and 7-F of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act are quasi-judicial orders. It was held in the case of Property Agents v. Shamsher Bahadur, 1964 A.L.J. 752 that the order oral rotment passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was a quasi-judicial order and, therefore, could not be reviewed as there was no specific provision in the Act empowering the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to do so. In the case of Laxman Purshottarn Pimputkar v. The State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 436 it was observed by the Supreme Court that "When an authority exercise its revisional powers it necessarily acts in a judicial or quasi-judicial, capacity. Therefore, the Government's order of October, 1946, must be deemed to be a judicial or quasi-judicial order. Such an order cannot be set aside or revised or modified just as an administrative order can be under Section 74." 6. The case before the Supreme Court was under the Watan Act (Bombay). However, the same principle would apply. 7. In an unreported case of this Court Ganesh Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Civil Misc. Writ No. 3931 of 1962, decided on 20.1.1967, a question exactly similar to that in the present writ petition arose. and it was held by Hon. Pathak, J. that the State Government's first order, being a quasi-judicial order, the State Government had no power to review it and its act in reviewing it was ultra vires and beyond its jurisdiction. I respectfully agree with that view. 8. In the result the writ petition is allowed and the order of the State Government passed upon the review petition of the opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 on 31st December, 1962, is quashed. I make no-order as to costs. Petition allowed.