( 1 ) THESE are two connected special appeals against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this court by the plaintiff of two different suits. They were connected because common questions of law arose. Both the appeals were disposed of by the learned single Judge by one judgment.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case arising out of Regular Suit No. 165 of 1955 are as follows : The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of house No. 288/63 Aishbagh Yahiyaganj Ward, Lucknow, by means of a purchase dated 29-6-1953, Ex. 9. He alleged that defendant No. 1 was his tenant and defendant No. 2 was the sub-tenant, that he obtained permission from the Rent Control and eviction Officer to eject the defendants and also gave notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of property Act but since the defendants have not vacated the premises hence the suit. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendants were in arrears of rent and defendant No. 1 had sublet to defendant No. 2 and on that ground also they were liable to ejectment. The defence on behalf of defendant No. 1 was that he was not liable to ejectment on the ground of sub-tenancy of on the ground of arrears of rent, that the notice given under Section 106 was invalid and since the plaintiff refused to accept the rent, he was not entitled to any decree on the basis of arrears of rent. Defendant No. 2 pleaded that he had been unnecessarily impleaded. The trial Court framed the following six issues : 1. Whether defendant 1 committed default in payment of rent and if so its effect? 2. Whether defendant 1 was served with a valid notice?

( 3 ) WHETHER plaintiff obtained permission to eject the defendant No. 1?

( 4 ) WHETHER defendant 1 has spent Rs. 30-10-6 as repairs and is he entitled to deduct the same?

( 5 ) WHETHER defendant 2 is unnecessary party?

( 6 ) TO what relief if any is plaintiff entitled? Issues Nos. 1, 4 and 5 were actually not pressed in the trial Court and the two important issue in the case were only issues Nos. 2 and 3. The learned munsif held that the notice given by the plaintiff wag a valid notice and the permission to eject the defendant had been obtained by the plaintiff and that had been confirmed by the State government, and, therefore, the suit was a proper suit and he accordingly decreed the plaintiffs suit with costs against the; defendants. The defendant went up in appeal to the District Judge of lucknow. The only point that was argued before the learned District Judge was, whether the notice, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, was a valid notice or not. The learned District Judge held that the notice was invalid and, therefore, the suits for ejectment were dismissed. Similarly in the second suit also it was held by the trial Court that the notice was a valid notice and, therefore the suit was decreed but the learned District Judge had upset that finding and held that the notice under Section 106 was invalid, and, therefore, he dismissed the suits. Against the above two decisions there were two second appeals which came up before hon. Gurtu, J. , who by his common judgment dated 23-4-1958, allowed both the appeals and decreed the plaintiffs suit with costs. As the question involved was an important question of law, he gave leave for special appeal in both the cases and these appeals have been listed before us for final hearing.

3. In order to appreciate the real point involved in the appeal, it is necessary to give a few facts. In suit No. 165 of 1955, as we have already mentioned, the plaintiff became the owner by means of a purchase dated 29-6-1953. After the purchase he wanted possession himself. Therefore, he sought permission of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to eject the defendant, who by an order dated 5-12-1953 Ex. 4, decided in the following terms : "considering all the facts in view, I hereby allow eight months time to the opposite party No. 1, and 6 months to the opposite party No. 4, from the date of making this order to f