Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MATHEW J. The appellants filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Allahabad praying that the order passed by the State Government on October 20, 1967, allowing a revision filed by the respondent be quashed and possession of the premises in question be given to them under s. 7-A of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter ,called the Act).

The original owner of the premises was one Ram Swaroop Gupta. He leased the premises to M/s Pioneer Exhibitors and Distributors Limited. They used the premises for exhibiting cinema. That lease terminated by efflux of time on June 30, 1952. Gupta, thereafter, leased the premises by a deed dated October 13, 1952 for a period of 10 years to Ram Agyan Singh, respondent No. 2. But there was no order allotting the accommodation to him under S. 7(2) of the Act. Respondent No. 2 also used the premises for exhibiting cinematography films. Disputes having arisen between the parties, Gupta filed suits for recovery of rent as well as for ejectment against respondent No. 2. The appellants purchased the premises in question from Ram Swaroop Gupta by a sale deed dated March, 26, 1962. Thereafter they filed an application under s. 7 of the Act read with rule 6 made under the Act for release of the accommodation in their favour. On December 3, 1965, the Additional District Magis- trate allowed the application and permitted the appellants to take possession of the premises. That was on the basis that the premises were in illegal occupation of respondent No. 2. The representation against this order filed by respondent No. 2 to the State Government was rejected on January 10, 1966 on the ground that there was no provision for any interference by Government with the order. On December 4, 1965, the appellants filed an application for eviction of respondent No. 2 under s. 7-A of the Act. On June 18, 1966, the Additional )District Magistrate directed issue of notice under clause (2) of s. 7-A, why respondent No. 2 should not be evicted. Thereafter, the Additional District Magistrate passed the order for eviction. Respondent No. 2 went up in revision against the order to the Additional Commissioner. He confirmed the cider of the Additional District Magistrate. Respondent No. 2, thereafter, filed an application for revision under s. 7-F of the Act before the State Government against the order. The State Government allowed that application on October 20, 1967 holding that respondent No. 2 was not liable to be evicted from the premises. On January 20, 1968, the State Government communicated to the parties a summary of the reasons on the basis of which the order had been passed. That in effect said that the respondent was running a cinema under a licence in the premises from 1952, that the District Magistrate, when he granted the licence, was satisfied that respondent No. 2 was in lawful occupation and that, in these circumstances, he was entitled to the benefit of the proviso to s. 7-A(1) of the Act and was not liable to be evicted from the premises.

Provided that no order under this section shall be passed if the District Magistrate is satisfied that there has been undue delay or it is otherwise inexpedient to-do so"

The proviso to sub-section (1) of s. 7-A is couched in wide language. The dictionary meaning of the word 'inexpedient' is:

"Not expedient; disadvantageous in the circumstances; unadvisable, impolitic."

The circumstances that could be taken into consideration to decide whether it is expedient or inexpedient to order an eviction under the section are not mentioned in the proviso. A great deal of discretion must,therefore, be vested in the District Magistrate and in the State Government when disposing a revision from an order passed by the District Magistrate as several factors would enter the making of the verdict whether it is inexpedient to pass an order of ,eviction under the section. In this case, the State Government has taken into account two reasons for exercising its discretion under the proviso in favour of respondent No. 2: (1) that respondent No. 2 was in possession from 1953 onwards and was conducting a cinema in the premises after obtaining a licence from the District Magistrate under the U. P. Cinema Regulation Act; (2) that the District Magistrate when granting the licence to conduct the cinema must have been satisfied that the respondent was in lawful occupation of the premises. In other words, what in substance the State Government said was, that respondent 'No. 2 has been using the premises for conducting cinema from 1953 on the basis of his possession of the premises and that it would be inexpedient to evict him at this stage. We cannot say that the circumstances taken into account are irrelevant for the exercise of the discretion. Mr. Gupte, appearing for the appellants, said that when the Additional District Magistrate passed the order for release on the basis that the appellants require the premises bona fide for their personal occupation, the State Government, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under s. 7-F against the order of eviction under s. 7-A ,should not have nullified the effect of the order of release by exercising its discretion under the proviso to s. 7-A against the appellants. He also said that the State Government did not even refer to the order for release which would show that it made no assessment of the hardship to the landlords. The fact that an order for release was passed by the Additional District Magistrate on the basis that the premises were bona fide required by the appellants for their personal occupation did not preclude him, when he was moved by the appellants to evict respondent no. 2 from exercising his discretion under the proviso to s. 7-A. For it is at that stage that the respondent will have the opportunity to urge the circumstances which make it inexpedient to evict him. In other words, the only relevant question at the time when the order (1) See Shorter oxford English Dictionary, Illustrated, VoI. 1, 3rd ed., (1964), p. 997.

We are not satisfied that the order of the State Government was vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. As already stated, the considerations which weighed with the State Government in rejecting the application, namely, the hardship to respondent No. 2 who was conducting a cinema in the premises from 1953 cannot be said to be irrelevant. As the order of the State Government did not suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of the record, the learned Single Judge was not justified in quashing the order and the Division Bench rightly set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeal.