{"id":55814,"date":"1969-03-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1969-03-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-ismail-vs-nanney-lal-on-7-march-1969"},"modified":"2019-01-17T10:57:45","modified_gmt":"2019-01-17T05:27:45","slug":"mohammad-ismail-vs-nanney-lal-on-7-march-1969","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-ismail-vs-nanney-lal-on-7-march-1969","title":{"rendered":"Mohammad Ismail vs Nanney Lal on 7 March, 1969"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mohammad Ismail vs Nanney Lal on 7 March, 1969<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 1919, \t\t  1969 SCR  (3) 894<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: G Mitter<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Hidayatullah, M. (Cj), Shah, J.C., Ramaswami, V., Mitter, G.K., Grover, A.N.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nMOHAMMAD ISMAIL,\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nNANNEY LAL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n07\/03\/1969\n\nBENCH:\nMITTER, G.K.\nBENCH:\nMITTER, G.K.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ)\nSHAH, J.C.\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nGROVER, A.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1970 AIR 1919\t\t  1969 SCR  (3) 894\n 1969 SCC  (1) 727\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1972 SC1910\t (13)\n\n\nACT:\nU.P.  (Temporary) Control of Rent &amp; Eviction Act (U.P. 7  of\n1947),\ts.  7-F-Suit  for  eviction  filed  after  obtaining\npermission  by\tCommissioner--Permission  revoked  by  State\nGovernment-Whether suit incompetent.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent &amp; Eviction Act,  1947,\nrestricts  the\trights of landlords to institute  suits\t for\neviction  of their tenants to cases covered by s. 3 (1)\t (a)\nto   (g)  except  with\tthe  permission\t of   the   District\nMagistrate.   The  District Magistrates order  granting\t the\npermission  is\texpressly made subject to any order  by\t the\nCommissioner  under  s. 3(2) provided  the  aggreived  party\napplies\t within\t 30 days to the Commissioner to\t revise\t the\norder.\t The  Commissioner must ordinarily  dispose  of\t the\napplication  within  six  weeks.  Section  7-F\tof  the\t Act\nconfers\t revisionary powers on-the State Government  in\t any\ncase granting or refusing to grant permission, and under  s.\n3(4)  the order of the Commissioner under s. 3 (3) is to  be\nfinal  subject to the order under s. 7-F.   The\t respondent-\nlandlord  obtained permission of the District Magistrate  to\nfile  a suit for eviction of the appellant-tenant  under  s.\n3(1)  of  the Act.  The tenant applied to  the\tCommissioner\nunder\ts.   3(2)  and\tthe   Commissioner   dismissed\t the\napplication.   The  tenant  then filed\ta  further  revision\napplication  to the State Government under s.  7-F.   Before\nthe disposal of the last revision application, the  landlord\nfiled  a suit for ejectment in pursuance of  the  permission\ngiven by the Commissioner.  Thereafter the State Coovernment\nset  aside  the order of the Commissioner  and\trevoked\t the\npermission granted to the landlord.  On the question whether\nthe  suit  filed,  after obtaining  the\t permission  of\t the\nCommissioner became incompetent on the making of an order by\nthe State Government under s. 7-F cancelling the  permission\nto sue given by the Commissioner, this Court,\nHELD   :  The  suit  validly  instituted   after   obtaining\npermission  as\trequired  by  s.  3  did  not  cease  to  be\nmaintainable even if the State Government thereafter revoked\nthe permission granted.\nUnder  sub-s. (1) of s. 3 the maintainability of a  suit  on\ngrounds\t other\tthan those mentioned in cls. (a) to  (g)  is\nmade  expressly 'subject to an order under sub-s. (3).\t The\nLegislature  did not provide that the right to file  a\tsuit\nwould be subject to or dependent upon an order under s.\t 7-F\nin the same way as an order under s. 3(3). [898 A]\nWhen  a\t landlord files a suit for eviction  only  with\t the\npermission  of the District Magistrate, he is  conscious  of\nthe  fact  that\t such  permission  may\tbe  revoked  by\t the\nCommissioner at the instance of the tenant within ten  weeks\nof its institution.  But 'so far as the revisional powers of\nthe  State Goverment are concerned, there is no\t time  limit\nfixed  either for application by an aggrieved party  or\t for\nthe  disposal thereof.\tIt may be made at any time  and\t the\nState  Government is further authorised by this section\t (s.\n7-F) to act suo motu.  In such a state of affairs, it cannot\nbe  held that the landlord must wait indefinitely  and\tfind\nout whether the\n895\npermission  granted  to\t him will be  upheld  by  the  State\nGovernment  should  the\t tenant\t make  an  application\t for\nrevision of the order of the Commissioner. [898 C]\nApart  from  the above consideration, the words\t in  s.\t 7-F\nindicate  that\tthe State Government can only  exercise\t its\nJurisdiction to revise the order of the Commissioner  before\nthe actual institution of the suit.  The language of s.\t 7-F\ndoes  not seem to be aimed at invalidating a  suit  already\ninstituted  and\t can  only operate at  a  stage\t before\t the\nlandlord launches his proceedings.  There is nothing in sub-\ns.  (4) of s. 3 read with s. 7-F to show that  the  landlord\nshould\twait  till the powers of the  revising.\t authorities\nhave been exhausted.  If the Legislature had so intended, it\ncould  have  used suitable words in sub-s. (1) of  s.  3  to\nindicate  that\tthe  grant of  permission  by  the  District\nMagistrate  would also be subject to an order under s.\t7-F.\n[898 F]\nThe Legislature had provided for a decree for eviction of  a\ntenant\tpassed before the commencement of the Act liable  to\nbe  rendered inexecutable unless it was based on any of\t the\ngrounds mentioned in sub-s. (3).  The Legislature might,  if\nso  advised,  have provided for a similar result in  a\tcase\nwhere the State Government had revoked the permission to sue\ngranted by the Commissioner.  It would make a mockery of the\njudicial  process if it were to be held on the\tlanguage  of\nthe  sections as they stood,. that irrespective of a  decree\nbeing  passed by the trial court being upheld in  appeal  by\nthe  High  Court or by this Court, the order  of  the  State\nGovernment   would  nullify  all  proceedings.\t  Once\t the\njurisdiction  under s. 16 was properly exercised  the  Court\ncannot\texamine the propriety of the order made\t thereunder.\n[899 B-D; 900 B]\n<a href=\"\/doc\/404039\/\">Bhagwan Das v. Paras Nath,<\/a> [1969] 2 S.C.R. 297, followed.\nShri Bhagwan v. Ram Chand [1965] 3 S.C.R. 218 and Bansi\t Ram\nv. Mantri Lal, I.L.R. [1965] 1 Allahabad 545, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 263 of 1969.<br \/>\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated<br \/>\nDecember  13,  1968 of the Allahabad High  Court  in  Second<br \/>\nAppeal No. 3474 of 1963.\n<\/p>\n<p>J.P.  Goyal,  G. N. Wantoo and V. C.  Parashar,\t for  the<br \/>\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>K. P. Gupta, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nMitter, J. The question in this appeal by special leave\t is,<br \/>\nwhether a suit for eviction of a tenant by a landlord, after<br \/>\nobtaining  the permission of the Commissioner  under  sub-s.<br \/>\n(3) of s. 3 of the Uttar Pradesh (Temporary) Control of Rent<br \/>\nand Eviction Act, 1947 becomes incompetent, on the making of<br \/>\nan order by the State Government under s. 7-F cancelling the<br \/>\npermission to sue given by the Commissioner.<br \/>\nThe  relevant  facts  for disposal of  this  appeal  are  as<br \/>\nfollows.  The respondent-landlord obtained permission of the<br \/>\nDistrict<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">896<\/span><br \/>\nMagistrate to file a suit for eviction against the appellant<br \/>\nunder  s. 3(1) of the Act on May 29, 1961.  The tenant\twent<br \/>\nup to the Commissioner of Agra Division under s. 3(2) of the<br \/>\nAct.   On  July\t 26, 1961  the\tCommissioner  dismissed\t the<br \/>\nrevision  application.\t The  tenant then  filed  a  further<br \/>\nrevision application to the State Government under s. 7-F of<br \/>\nthe   Act.   Before  the  disposal  of\tthe  last   revision<br \/>\napplication,  the  landlord filed a suit  for  ejectment  on<br \/>\nJanuary\t 18,  1962  in\tthe court of  the  Munsif,  Etah  in<br \/>\npursuance  of the permission given by the Commissioner.\t  On<br \/>\nJune  16, 1962 the, State Government set aside the order  of<br \/>\nthe  Commissioner and revoked the permission granted to\t the<br \/>\nlandlord.   The suit was dismissed by the Munsif of Etah  on<br \/>\nNovember  17,  1962.  The Civil Judge of  Etah\tallowed\t the<br \/>\nappeal\tof the landlord on September 28, 1963.\t The  tenant<br \/>\nwent up in Second Appeal to the High Court.  On December 13,<br \/>\n1968  a\t learned single Judge of ,the Allahabad\t High  Court<br \/>\ndismissed  the tenant&#8217;s appeal following a judgment of\tthis<br \/>\nCourt in <a href=\"\/doc\/404039\/\">Bhagwan Das v. Paras Nath<\/a>(1).\tLearned counsel\t for<br \/>\nthe  appellant contended that some aspects of  the  question<br \/>\nhad  not been raised before and\/or considered by this  Court<br \/>\non the prior occasion which might have induced the Court  to<br \/>\ncome  to a different conclusion.  Having heard\tcounsel\t at<br \/>\nsome length, we are convinced that there is no merit in\t his<br \/>\nsubmissions.   We  respectfully agree with the\tdecision  in<br \/>\nBhagwan Das&#8217;s case(2) and are satisfied that counsel has not<br \/>\nbeen  able to show that any relevant aspect of the  question<br \/>\nwas not considered on the former occasion.<br \/>\nThere  was  no unanimity of opinion in\tthe  Allahabad\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt as regards the effect of an order passed by the  State<br \/>\nGovernment contrary to the Commissioner&#8217;s order on the basis<br \/>\nof  which a suit for eviction was filed in  the\t subordinate<br \/>\ncourts.\t So far as the High Court was concerned, the  matter<br \/>\nwas  laid  at rest by a Full Bench decision in the  case  of<br \/>\nBansi Ram v. Mantri Lal(2).  This Court while not concurring<br \/>\nwith  all that was said in Bansi Ram&#8217;s case(3)\tagreed\twith<br \/>\nthe  Full  Bench  that\ta  suit\t validly  instituted   after<br \/>\nobtaining permission as required by s. 3 did not cease to be<br \/>\nmaintainable even if the State Government thereafter revoked<br \/>\nthe permission granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 3(1) of the Act restricts the rights of landlords to<br \/>\ninstitute suits for eviction of tenants to cases covered  by<br \/>\nclauses\t (a)  to  (g) of that sub-section  except  with\t the<br \/>\npermission  of the District Magistrate.\t The words  of\tthis<br \/>\nsubsection are imperative and show that no such suit can be<br \/>\nfiled  without the permission of the said authority.   Under<br \/>\nthe  Transfer of Property Act the only pre-requisite to\t the<br \/>\ninstitution of a valid suit for eviction of a monthly tenant<br \/>\nis the service of a proper notice to quit.  The<br \/>\n(1) [1969] 2 S.C.R. 297.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2) I.L.R. [1965] 1 Allahabad 545.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">897<\/span><\/p>\n<p>landlord  is  not obliged to make out any  ground  For\tsuch<br \/>\neviction.  Where he seeks to eject a tenant and can make out<br \/>\na case which falls within any of the sub-clauses (a) to (g),<br \/>\nhe need not approach the District Magistrate for  permission<br \/>\nto  sue.   It  follows that  the  District  Magistrate\tmust<br \/>\nconsider the justification for the institution of a suit  in<br \/>\nall other cases.  His order is expressly made subject to any<br \/>\norder under sub-s. (3) of the section.\tIn order that  power<br \/>\nunder the latter sub-section can be exercised, it is  neces-<br \/>\nsary for the aggrieved party to apply to the Commissioner to<br \/>\nrevise the order of the Magistrate by making an\t application<br \/>\nunder sub-s. (2) of the section within 30 days from the date<br \/>\non  which  the\torder is communicated to  him.\t Sub-s.\t (3)<br \/>\nenjoins\t upon the Commissioner to hear the  application,  as<br \/>\nfar may be, within six weeks from the date of making it\t and<br \/>\nhis powers in this regard are not subject to any limitation.<br \/>\nA  landlord  may  file a suit for eviction  on\tgetting\t the<br \/>\npermission  of the District Magistrate to do so but he\truns<br \/>\nthe   risk   of\t such  permission  being  revoked   by\t the<br \/>\nCommissioner in which case his suit will become\t infructuous<br \/>\nas by the express words of sub-s. (1) the permission of\t the<br \/>\nDistrict  Magistrate  is  made subject to  revision  by\t the<br \/>\nCommissioner.\tThe question arises whether the same  result<br \/>\nwill follow if the order of the Commissioner is in its\tturn<br \/>\nupset  by  the\tState Government acting\t under\ts.  7-F\t and<br \/>\nwhether\t sub-s. (4) of s. 3 should be so construed.  In\t our<br \/>\nopinion,  an order under s. 7-F cannot affect a\t suit  filed<br \/>\nprior  thereto\tif the landlord has obtained  the  necessary<br \/>\nsanction from the Commissioner.\t The relevant portion of the<br \/>\nsections are quoted below* for facility of reference.<br \/>\n*(3)  Restrictions  on eviction.-(1) Subject  to  any  order<br \/>\npassed\tunder  subsection  (3) no suit\tshall,\twithout\t the<br \/>\npermission of the District Magistrate, be filed in any civil<br \/>\ncourt against a tenant for his eviction from any accommoda-<br \/>\ntion, except on one or more of the following grounds\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)   to   (g)&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.<br \/>\n(2)Where  any  application has been made to  the  District<br \/>\nMagistrate for permission to sue a tenant for eviction\tfrom<br \/>\nany  accommodation  and the District  Magistrate  grants  or<br \/>\nrefuses to grant the permission, the party aggrieved by his.<br \/>\norder  may, within 30 days from the date on which the  order<br \/>\nis communicated to him, apply to the Commissioner to  revise<br \/>\nthe order.\n<\/p>\n<p>(3)The Commissioner shall hear the application made  under<br \/>\nsub-section (2), as far as may be, within six weeks from the<br \/>\ndate of making it, and he may, if he is not satisfied as  to<br \/>\nthe  correctness. legality or propriety of the order  passed<br \/>\nby  the\t District  Magistrate or as  to\t the  regularity  of<br \/>\nproceedings  held before him alter or reverse his order,  or<br \/>\nmake such other order as may be just and proper.<br \/>\n(4)The\torder  of the Commissioner under  subsection,  (3)<br \/>\nshall,\tsubject to any order passed by the State  Government<br \/>\nunder section 7-F be final.\n<\/p>\n<p>7-F.-Revision  to State Government-Me State  Government\t may<br \/>\ncall  for  the record of any case granting  or\trefusing  to<br \/>\ngrant  permission  for\tthe filing of a\t suit  for  eviction<br \/>\nreferred  to in Section 3 or requiring any accommodation  to<br \/>\nbe  let or not to be let to, any person under Section  7  or<br \/>\ndirecting a person to vacate any accommodation under Section<br \/>\n7-A  and may make such order as appears to it necessary\t for<br \/>\nthe ends of justice.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">898<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Under  sub-s: (1) the maintainability of a suit\t on  grounds<br \/>\nother  than  those  mentioned in cls. (a)  to  (g)  is\tmade<br \/>\nexpressly subject to an order under sub-s. (3).\t It will  be<br \/>\nnoted  that the Legislature has conferred various powers  on<br \/>\nthe  State  Government besides the power to  reverse  orders<br \/>\nunder section 3. For reasons of its own the Legislature\t did<br \/>\nnot  provide that the right to file a suit would be  subject<br \/>\nto  or dependent upon an order under s. 7-F in the same\t way<br \/>\nas an order under section 3 (3).\n<\/p>\n<p>Various\t reasons were given by this Court in  Bhagwan  Das&#8217;s<br \/>\ncase(1) for coming to, the conclusion that s. 7-F was not to<br \/>\nbe construed in the same way as s. 3(3) and we are in entire<br \/>\nagreement  therewith.\tWhen  a landlord filed\ta  suit\t for<br \/>\neviction only with the permission of the District Magistrate<br \/>\nhe  knows  that it would be open to the tenant\tto  ask\t for<br \/>\nrevocation  of\tthe  permission by  an\tapplication  to\t the<br \/>\nCommissioner  within 30 days from the communication  of\t the<br \/>\norder  of the District Magistrate to him.  He is also  aware<br \/>\nthat the Commissioner must, except for unavoidable  reasons,<br \/>\nhear  the  application and dispose of it  within  six  weeks<br \/>\nthereafter.   At  the most, therefore, he has  to  wait\t for<br \/>\nabout  ten weeks from the order of the\tDistrict  Magistrate<br \/>\ngranting  permission  to  find out  whether  he\t can  safely<br \/>\ninstitute  a suit.  But so far as the revisional  powers  of<br \/>\nthe  State Government are concerned, there is no time  limit<br \/>\nfixed  either for application by an aggrieved party  or\t for<br \/>\nthe  disposal thereof.\tIt may be made at any time  and\t the<br \/>\nState  Government is further authorised by this section\t (s.<br \/>\n7-F) to act suo motu.  In such a state of affairs, it  would<br \/>\nnot   be  right\t to  hold  that\t the  landlord\t must\twait<br \/>\nindefinitely and find out whether the permission granted  to<br \/>\nhim will be upheld by the State Government should the tenant<br \/>\nmake  an  application  for  revision of\t the  order  of\t the<br \/>\nCommissioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>Apart  from the above consideration, the words of s. 7-F  in<br \/>\nour  opinion,  indicate that the State Government  can\tonly<br \/>\nexercise  its  jurisdiction  to\t revise\t the  order  of\t the<br \/>\nCommissioner before the actual institution of the suit.\t The<br \/>\nlanguage  of  s.  7-F shows that on the facts  of  the\tcase<br \/>\nbefore\tit  the State Government must consider\twhether\t the<br \/>\ngrant of or refusal to grant permission for the filing of  a<br \/>\nsuit should be upheld or not.  The section does not seem  to<br \/>\nbe  aimed at invalidating a suit already instituted and\t can<br \/>\nonly  operate  at a stage before the landlord  launches\t his<br \/>\nproceeding.   There  is nothing in sub-s. (4) of s.  3\tread<br \/>\nwith  s.  7-F to show that a landlord should wait  till\t the<br \/>\npowers of the revising authorities have been exhausted.\t  If<br \/>\nthe Legislature had so intended, it could have used words in<br \/>\nsub-s. (1) of s. 3 to indicate that the grant of  permission<br \/>\nby the District Magistrate would also be subject to an order<br \/>\nunder  s. 7-F.\tThe same result might have been achieved  by<br \/>\nproviding for the stay of a suit in case the State<br \/>\n(1)  [1969] 2 S.C.R. 297.\n<\/p>\n<p>8 99<br \/>\nGovernment  made an order under s. 7-F contrary to  that  of<br \/>\nthe Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>Once  a suit is validly instituted it must take\t its  course<br \/>\nand the decree passed therein must be given effect to unless<br \/>\nthe  words of the statute render the decree inexecutable  or<br \/>\nliable to re-opening in a proper case, on grounds  mentioned<br \/>\nin the statute.\t It was pointed out by this Court in Bhagwan<br \/>\nDas&#8217;s case(1) that the Legislautre had provided for a decree<br \/>\nfor  eviction of a tenant passed before the commencement  of<br \/>\nthe  Act  liable to be rendered inexecutable unless  it\t was<br \/>\nbased  on any of the grounds mentioned in sub-s.  (3).\t The<br \/>\nLegislature&#8217;  might,  if  so advised, have  provided  for  a<br \/>\nsimilar\t result\t in a case where the  State  Government\t had<br \/>\nrevoked the permission to sue granted by the Commissioner.<br \/>\nIt  was\t also pointed out in Bhagwan Das&#8217;s case(1)  that  it<br \/>\nwould  make a mockery of the judicial process if we were  to<br \/>\nhold  on  the  language of the sections\t as  they  stand  at<br \/>\npresent,  that irrespective of a decree being passed by\t the<br \/>\ntrial\t  court being upheld in appeal by the High Court  or<br \/>\nby  this  Court,  the order of the  State  Government  would<br \/>\nnullity all proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>There  is  nothing  in the judgment of this  Court  in\tShri<br \/>\nBhogwan\t v. Ram Chand(2) read with section 16(3) of the\t Act<br \/>\nwhich would incline us to come to any different conclusion.<br \/>\nOn  the\t strength of the decision in that case read  id\t the<br \/>\nlight  of s. 16, it was argued that the order of  the  State<br \/>\nGovernment  being  quasi-judicial in nature  s.\t 16  (inset)<br \/>\nplaced the order of the State Government beyond the pale  of<br \/>\nscrutiny by a court of law.  We cannot see any force in this<br \/>\nargument.   The permission to sue given by the\tCommissioner<br \/>\nhas  no\t effect\t on the course of the trial  of\t the  issues<br \/>\ninvolved  in  that  suit.  That permission is  only  a\tpre-<br \/>\nrequisite  to a suit as a notice under s. 80 of the Code  of<br \/>\nCivil Procedure.  The court trying the suit for eviction has<br \/>\nto  find out whether a proper notice to quit was  given\t and<br \/>\nwhether\t the tenancy was properly determined.  It must\talso<br \/>\nexamine the grounds on the basis of which the landlord seeks<br \/>\nto  evict  the\ttenant and decide for  itself  whether\tsuch<br \/>\ngrounds\t exist.\t  Neither the District\tMagistrate  nor\t the<br \/>\nCommissioner nor the State Government is obliged to disclose<br \/>\nany  reasons  which may influence the  said  authorities  in<br \/>\ncoming to their decision and the court is not called upon to<br \/>\nexamine\t  whether  the\tconclusion  of\tany  of\t  the\tsaid<br \/>\nauthorities was properly arrived &#8216;at.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel for the appellant would have us hold that<br \/>\n(1) [1969] 2 S.C.R. 297.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2) [1965] 3 S.C.R. 218.\n<\/p>\n<p>L11 Sup.Cl\/69-8<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">900<\/span><br \/>\ns.16*  ousted the jurisdiction of the Court to consider\t the<br \/>\npropriety  of  any order of the State  Government.   In\t our<br \/>\nview, that is not the effect of that section.  The  decision<br \/>\nin  Shri Bhagwan v. Ram Chand (supra) shows that  the  State<br \/>\nGovernment  must offer a reasonable opportunity to both\t the<br \/>\nparties while it exercises its jurisdiction under s. 7-F and<br \/>\nan  order  which is made in violation of the  principles  of<br \/>\nnatural justice may be quashed.\t Once the jurisdiction under<br \/>\ns.  16\tis properly exercised the court cannot\texamine\t the<br \/>\npropriety of the order made thereunder.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.<br \/>\nTwo  is only exercisable at a point of time anterior to\t the<br \/>\nfiling\tof a suit and courts of law can therefore  disregard<br \/>\nany order under that section which is Made after the  filing<br \/>\nof a suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.<br \/>\nTwo  months time granted from today for vacating subject  to<br \/>\npayment\t of rent and an undertaking given that the  property<br \/>\nwould be handed over peacefully within that time.\n<\/p>\n<p>Y.P.\t\t\t\t      Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>*Section  16.  Orders under the Act not to be questioned  in<br \/>\nany  Court.No  order  made  under  this\t Act  by  the  State<br \/>\nGovernment  or\tthe District Magistrate shall be  called  in<br \/>\nquestion in any court.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">901<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Mohammad Ismail vs Nanney Lal on 7 March, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 1919, 1969 SCR (3) 894 Author: G Mitter Bench: Hidayatullah, M. (Cj), Shah, J.C., Ramaswami, V., Mitter, G.K., Grover, A.N. PETITIONER: MOHAMMAD ISMAIL, Vs. RESPONDENT: NANNEY LAL DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/03\/1969 BENCH: MITTER, G.K. BENCH: MITTER, G.K. HIDAYATULLAH, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-55814","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mohammad Ismail vs Nanney Lal on 7 March, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-ismail-vs-nanney-lal-on-7-march-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohammad Ismail vs Nanney Lal on 7 March, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-ismail-vs-nanney-lal-on-7-march-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1969-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-17T05:27:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-ismail-vs-nanney-lal-on-7-march-1969#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-ismail-vs-nanney-lal-on-7-march-1969\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohammad Ismail vs Nanney Lal on 7 March, 1969\",\"datePublished\":\"1969-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-17T05:27:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-ismail-vs-nanney-lal-on-7-march-1969\"},\"wordCount\":2453,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-ismail-vs-nanney-lal-on-7-march-1969#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-ismail-vs-nanney-lal-on-7-march-1969\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-ismail-vs-nanney-lal-on-7-march-1969\",\"name\":\"Mohammad Ismail vs Nanney Lal on 7 March, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1969-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-17T05:27:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-ismail-vs-nanney-lal-on-7-march-1969#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-ismail-vs-nanney-lal-on-7-march-1969\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-ismail-vs-nanney-lal-on-7-march-1969#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohammad Ismail vs Nanney Lal on 7 March, 1969\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mohammad Ismail vs Nanney Lal on 7 March, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-ismail-vs-nanney-lal-on-7-march-1969","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohammad Ismail vs Nanney Lal on 7 March, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-ismail-vs-nanney-lal-on-7-march-1969","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1969-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-17T05:27:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-ismail-vs-nanney-lal-on-7-march-1969#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-ismail-vs-nanney-lal-on-7-march-1969"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohammad Ismail vs Nanney Lal on 7 March, 1969","datePublished":"1969-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-17T05:27:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-ismail-vs-nanney-lal-on-7-march-1969"},"wordCount":2453,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-ismail-vs-nanney-lal-on-7-march-1969#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-ismail-vs-nanney-lal-on-7-march-1969","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-ismail-vs-nanney-lal-on-7-march-1969","name":"Mohammad Ismail vs Nanney Lal on 7 March, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1969-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-17T05:27:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-ismail-vs-nanney-lal-on-7-march-1969#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-ismail-vs-nanney-lal-on-7-march-1969"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-ismail-vs-nanney-lal-on-7-march-1969#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohammad Ismail vs Nanney Lal on 7 March, 1969"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55814","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=55814"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55814\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55814"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55814"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55814"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}