Judgment

GROVER, J. :- This is an appeal by Special leave from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court.

2. The facts may be shortly stated. Harbans Lal deceased, now represented by the respondents, let out certain land to one Mistri Ibrahim in January 1941 at a monthly rent of Rs. 12/-. The rent was later on increased to Rs. 24/- with effect from February 1948. According to the respondent the present appellant colluded with the tenant, Mistri Ibrahim, and entered into possession of the land sometimes before 1950. Mistri Ibrahim ultimately left for Pakistan and the appellant was recognised as his tenant by Harbans Lal on the same terms and conditions. Harbans Lal died in November 1954 and left a will in which he created a trust known as Harbans Lal Charitable Trust. In 1959 after serving a notice on the appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy the respondent filed a suit for ejectment. The Suit was contested by the appellant on the ground, inter alia, than when the land was let out to him it had a roofed varandha and kothri. Mistri Ibrahim had installed a workshop and in 1949 the appellant acquired the goodwill, workshop and business of Mistri Ibrahim and settled on the land with the consent and permission of Harbans Lal. He also constructed a permanent building by investing a sum of Rupees 40,000/- with the knowledge and consent of Harbans Lal. The main plea was that the suit was barred by Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of the Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, (U. P. Act No. III of 1947), hereinafter called the Act .

3. After framing the necessary issues and trying them the trial Court decreed the suit for ejectment as well as for recovery of Rupees 314.80 as arrears of rent. The appellant filed an appeal to the Court of the Additional Civil judge who dismissed the same. The appeal to the High Court also failed.

4. Section 2 (a) of the Act to the extent it is material is as follows :

" "Accommodation" means residential and non-residential accommodation in any building or part of a building and includes .... ..... ..... ..... ...... ...... ....." According to Section 3 no suit can be filed without the permission of the District Magistrate in any civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on the grounds set out in Cls. (a) to (g) of that section. It is common ground that if the demised premises in the present case falls within the meaning of "accommodation" as defined by S. 2 (a) the permission of the District Magistrate was necessary and the suit could not have been filed for eviction of the appellant without obtaining such permission which admittedly was not done.

5. The principal argument on behalf of the appellant is that an allotment order was made on February 27, 1950 by the Rent Control Officer in favour of the appellant. In that allotment order the schedule of accommodation contained the following :-

"A mud roof varandah and a kothri with open place at present is used by Shri Mohd. Ibrahim for tonga repairing work, situated at Begum Bridge Road in front of Dr. Phopel s Kothi."

It appears that Harbans Lal drafted out a letter, to the Rent Control Officer pointing out that only a part of the land had been let out by him to Mistri Mohd. Ibrahim by an agreement dated 7-1-1941 according to which he was authorised to make to temporary construction and that he had actually constructed a shed at his own cost which he was liable to remove when the land was required by the landlord. This letter, however, was never sent to the Rent Control Officer. It has, therefore, been urged on behalf of the appellant that Harbans Lal accepted this statement contained in the allotment order. It is suggested that the existence of a mud roof varandah and kothri on the land would bring the premises within the definition of "accommodation". The Additional Civil Judge who considered the evidence expressed the view that the kothri and varandah had been constructe