( 1 ) THIS is a tenants second appeal in a suit for ejectment. The appellant contested the suit on the grounds, inter alia, that the notice served by the landlord under Section 106 of the T. P. Act prior to the filing of the suit was invalid. The trial Court held that the notice was invalid and dismissed the suit-The lower appellate court reversed this finding and held that the notice was valid. It accordingly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for the appellants eviction with costs. He has now come to this court in Second Appeal.

( 2 ) THE only point urged before me is that the notice under Section 106 of the T. P. Act was not a valid notice according to law and therefore the suit was not maintainable. The facts of the case are these. The appellant Rati Ram, a practising Vakil, has been the tenant of the respondent mithan Lal without interruption since 1938. In 1953 the landlord applied to the District magistrate for permission under Section 3 of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act to file a suit for the ejectment of the appellant. Permission was refused both by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the Commissioner, but granted by the State Government under Section 7-F of the Act by an order dated 13-4-1955. This Order allowed Ratiram six months to vacate the accommodation and stated that the permission to file a suit would take effect after six months.

( 3 ) IT appears that the appellant did not vacate the house voluntarily. Six months were due to expire on 13-10-1955. The landlord served a notice under Section 106 of the T. P. Act terminating the tenancy which was received by the appellant Rati Ram on 22nd September. It asked him to vacate the house within thirty days of its receipt. The appellant, however, appears to have taken no notice of this warning and on 1-12-1955 the landlord filed his suit for ejectment.

( 4 ) IT should be noted that the permission of the State Government became effective on the 13th october, 1955. The suit itself was filed after the permission had become effective. But the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy was issued and received in September, 1955 when the permission to file a suit had not become effective, that is to say, when there was no permission at all in law. This fact is the foundation of the entire case of the appellant in this appeal.

( 5 ) MR. Ojha, who argued the case for the appellant with ability, contended that the permission under Section 3 of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act is a necessary condition not only for the filing of the suit for ejectment, but also for all steps which are ancillary to and a pre-condition of the filing of the suit. According to him, the service of notice under Section 106 of the T. P. Act terminating the tenancy is an inseparable part of a continuous process culminating in the fifing of the suit, and cannot be issued by the landlord unless and until the has obtained the permission required under Section 3.

( 6 ) THE argument of learned counsel appears plausible at first sight and raises some interesting questions. It is true that a suit for the ejectment of the tenant can succeed only if the landlord has previously terminated the tenancy by serving a notice to that effect on the tenant under Section 106 of the T. P. Act. Without such notice the tenant will have in case of a tenancy at will, an impregnable defence that he has a right to occupy the accommodation and cannot be evicted. Under Section 106 of the T. P. Act, as applied to the State of Uttar Pradesh, the landlord can terminate the tenancy by giving one months notice. After the expiry of thirty days from the receipt of this notice, the tenancy is at an end and, if the tenant continues to occupy the premises, he becomes a trespasser and the landlord can file a suit for his ejectment. The question for me to decide is whether it is open to a landlord to terminate the tenancy by serving on the tenant a notice under Section