BABU LAL Vs. B GANGA SARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was a monthly tenant of a shop at Lucknow belonging to him, that the monthly rent was Rs. 18 12 0 that he had obtained the permission of the Rent Control Officer to eject the defendant, that he had served the defendant with a notice to quit by 31-1-1950, that this notice was served on the defendant on 23-12-1949 and that the defendant had cot vacated the shop in spite of notice and that therefore he had to bring the suit for his ejectment. He claimed a sum of Rs. 22 12-0 as arrears of rent. In defence the defendant admitted that he was a tenant of the shop in dispute for a long time and that he was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 18-12-0 per month. He did not however admit the rest of the allegations with regard to tenancy on the ground that he had no knowledge thereof. He admitted the receipt of the notice to quit but he did not admit the con^ tents of the notice as alleged by the plaintiff. He further pleaded that the permission obtained by the plaintiff to have him ejected was not valid because on two previous occasions similar applications to the Rent Control Officer had been dismissed, one on 20.4-1948 and the other on 8-9-1943. He did not suggest as to what were the terms of the tenancy upon which he was occupying the shop in dispute nor did he allege anything to show that the date mentioned by the plaintiff as the date by which he had been asked to vacate was wrong or that the facts were other than what the plaintiff had stated. No plea about invalidity of the notice to quit was raised in the written statement. This plea was, however, raised later on and the Munsif allowed evidence to be recorded in respect of it.

(2.) The Munsif rejected the defendant's pleas and decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court has confirmed that decree.

(3.) In this second appeal three points have been urged before me. It has been urged that the permission obtained by the plaintiff-respondent for the ejectment of the appellant was invalid for two reasons, firstly that two other similar applications having been dismissed by the Rent Control Officer, he had no jurisdiction to grant a third application on similar grounds and secondly that a third application was barred by the principle of res judicata and could not have been allowed.