A. P. Srivastava, J. - (1.) Three questions have been referred to us in this case for answers.
(2.) The appellants were landlords and one Chiranji Lal was the tenant of the shops in dispute. The appellants obtained permission under Sec. 3 of the U.P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) from the District Magistrate to file a suit for ejectment against Chiranji Lal. The permission was obtained on the ground that the shops were in a dilapidated condition and needed to be reconstructed. After the permission was granted a suit was actually filed but failed because the notice of ejectment issued under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was held to be defective. During the Pendency of the suit Chiranji Lal died and his son and widow were brought upon the record as heirs. These heirs of Chiranji Lal continued in occupation of the shop even after the suit had failed on the ground of defective notice and rent was realised from them by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs then without obtaining a fresh permission under Sec. 3 of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act filed another suit for the ejectment of the son and widow of Chiranji Lal from the shops. Before filing the suit another notice terminating the tenancy was served upon them as required by the Transfer of Property Act.
(3.) This suit was contested by the heirs of Chiranji Lal and one of the main grounds raised was that the suit was not maintainable because a fresh permission had not been obtained under Sec. 3 of the Act. It was contended that the permission which had been obtained earlier had been granted against Chiranji Lal personally and could not be availed of for maintaining a suit against his heirs, particularly when the hairs themselves had been recognised as tenants by the plaintiffs and rent had been realised from them.;