Satish Chandra, C. J. - (1.) :-
(2.) A learned Single Judge has referred a question of law in a defendant's second appeal which arose out of a suit for ejectment from a residential house and for recovery of arrears of rent and of damages. Manohar Lal was the landlord of the house. He let it out to Sunder Swarup on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/-. Manohar Lal on July 29, 1963 obtained permission of the District Magistrate to file a suit for ejectment of the tenant Sunder Swarup. The permission was obtained under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. Thereafter Manohar Lal served a combined notice of demand and to quit on the tenant. Finding no response, he instituted a suit for the ejectment of the tenant and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages from him. During the pendency of the suit, Sunder Swarup, the original defendant, died in 1966. His heirs were substituted. Subsequently, on April 14, 1970 Manohar Lal sold the house in dispute to Kailash Behari Sharma, the present plaintiff-respondent. On November 12,1970, Manohar Lal died. Mr. Sharma, the transferee, applied for substitution of his name as plaintiff. This application was allowed. In due course, the trial court decreed the suit for ejectment on the finding that the defendant had committed default in paying the arrears of rent inspite of service of a valid notice of demand. The defendants went up in appeal.
(3.) THE lower appellate court dismissed the appeal. It confirmed the finding that the tenant committed default in paying the arrears of rent and that the notice was valid. THE submission made on behalf of the defendant tenant that the permission granted by the District Magistrate to Manohar Lal did not enure for the benefit of the transferee, was upheld but the decree for ejectment was maintained because of the finding that the tenant had committed default. Aggrieved, the defendants came up to this Court in second appeal. At the hearing of the second appeal it was submitted on behalf of the defendants that the permission granted to the plaintiff-landlord, namely, Manohar Lal, did not in law enure for the benefit of the transferee. The learned Single Judge felt that the question requires consideration by a larger Bench. He hence referred the following question to a larger Bench :- "Whether a permission granted under Section 3 (1) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (No. Ill of 1947) for filing a suit in a civil court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation enures for the benefit of a purchaser of the accommodation which is sold to him during the pendency of a suit filed on the basis of such permission ?";