CHOTEY LAL Vs. SHEO SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment and for arrears of rent.

(2.) The defendant-appellant was a tenant of a certain shop belonging to the plaintiff-respondent in Urdu Bazar in the city of Gorakhpur. It was a month to month tenancy. The plaintiff-respondent applied to the Town Rationing Officer who seems to have been authorised by the District Magistrate to act under the Control of Rent and Eviction Act, III [3] of 1947, for permission to sue the defendant-appellant for his ejectment from the shop. It is not clear on what ground the permission was sought. There is one application on the record dated 30-4-1948, in which the ground for ejectment mentioned that the defendant-appellant had damaged the wall of the shop. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent asserts that there was another application in which he had alleged that he wanted the shop for his own business. However, that may be, the Town Rationing Officer granted permission to sue the defendant, appellant for his ejectment by an order dated 8-5-1948. There is another order dated 22-5-1948, in which also the Town Rationing Officer had granted the same permission. There appears to have been a further order dated 18-6-1948, in which the permission already granted was again confirmed.

(3.) The plaintiff-respondent then gave notice for the ejectment of the defendant appellant and after the expiry of the time of the notice he filed a suit on 22-10-1948, for the ejectment of the defendant-appellant. This was Suit No. 760 of 1948. It appears, however, that the plaintiff-respondent accepted rent after he had given notice to the defendant-appellant and he considered that this acceptance of rent may be a bar to his success in the suit. He, therefore,, applied for the withdrawal of the suit with permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. This permission was granted on 26-1-1949, and the suit was withdrawn. Then on. 31-1-1949, a fresh notice was given to the defendant-appellant asking him to vacate the shop. The defendant-appellant not having vacated the shop, the suit which has given rise to the present appeal was filed on 17-3-1949.