Final eviction permission may still support a later application when the first suit failed only on a technical ground.

A landlord who had obtained final permission under section 3 of the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 was not barred from invoking section 43(2)(rr) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 after an earlier eviction suit failed on a technical ground and not on merits. The prior dismissal as infructuous did not invalidate the permission or exhaust it for later statutory use. The retrospective amendment making explicit that an application could be made even if a suit had already been instituted confirmed that the legislative scheme permitted reliance on the same final permission. The objection to maintainability was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after a suit for eviction filed on the basis of permission under section 3 of the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 was dismissed on a technical ground and not on merits, the landlord could invoke section 43(2)(rr) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 on the strength of the same permission, and whether such application was maintainable.

Analysis: The permission obtained under the old Act had become final, but the first suit based on that permission was dismissed because the cause of action was treated as infructuous and not because the permission itself was held invalid or the merits of eviction were decided against the landlord. Section 43(2)(rr) expressly contemplated an application where such permission had been obtained and had become final, whether or not a suit for eviction had already been instituted. The later amendment inserting the words making that position explicit operated retrospectively, reinforcing that the prior filing of a suit did not exhaust the permission where the earlier proceeding failed on a technical ground. The objection that the landlord was barred from taking the second course was therefore contrary to the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The application under section 43(2)(rr) was maintainable, and the objection that the prior suit had exhausted the permission was rejected.

---