TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether permission granted by an Additional District Magistrate was valid under the rent control statute so as to make the suit for ejectment competent.
Analysis: The statutory definition of "District Magistrate" included an officer authorised by the District Magistrate to perform functions under the Act. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, by section 10(2), empowered the Provincial Government to appoint an Additional District Magistrate with all or any of the powers of a District Magistrate under the Code or any other law for the time being in force. The notification in favour of the Additional District Magistrate conferred those powers, and therefore the permission granted by him satisfied the requirement of the rent control statute. The District Magistrate was not a persona designata in the sense contended, and the order transferring the matter to the Additional District Magistrate did not invalidate the permission.
Conclusion: The permission was validly granted by a competent authority, and the suit was competent; the objection to maintainability failed.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed because the permission to sue was held to be legally effective, leaving the decree for ejectment undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute defines the District Magistrate to include an authorised officer, an Additional District Magistrate duly vested with the powers of a District Magistrate under section 10(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, can validly exercise that function and grant permission required by the special statute.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
