A compromise between one of the joint owners and the tenant does not affect the right of the other owner to eject the tenant from the premises in suit.

H. S. CHATURVEDI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment and for recovery of rent.

( 2 ) BASANT Lal and Babu Ram, the two respondents, brought the suit on 3-12-1951, for ejectment of Moti Lal appellant from the shop which had been purchased by the two brothers some time before the suit. It appears that on 22-10-1951, the two brothers (plaintiffs) served a notice on the appellant requiring him to vacate the shop. This notice was served after Basant Lal had obtained the permission of the District Magistrate of Kheri to eject Moti Lal appellant from the shop in question.

( 3 ) THE title of the plaintiffs to the shop which was in occupation of the defendant as a tenant was not disputed. The only ground upon which the suit was contested was that the permission obtained from the District Magistrate as also the notice served on the defendant were bad in law.

( 4 ) THE learned Munsif held the notice-which was served upon the appellant Moti Lal was a perfectly valid notice. He also held that the permission obtained by one of the two joint owners from the District Magistrate was a good permission so as to entitled both the brothers the owners of the shop, to maintain the suit. On these findings the plaintiffs suit for ejectment and for recovery of Rs. 199/14/- was decreed. It was also ordered that "the plaintiffs shall get damages at the rate of Rs. 33-3-0 per month from the date of the suit till the date of the ejectment".

( 5 ) AFTER the decision of the learned Munsif the matter was taken up in appeal by the tenant. During the pendency of the appeal one of the plaintiffs, i. e. Basant Lal, entered into a compromise with Moti Lal tenant which was filed and. Verified on 11-2-1952. By this compromise Basant Lal agreed to give up his moiety share of the rent due and damages which had been awarded by the learned Munsiff, it was also mentioned in the compromise petition that Basant Lal who was the owner of a moiety share in the shop, did not want to continue the appeal, so far as he was concerned. The compromise referred to other matters also, but it is not necessary to mention them here.

( 6 ) THE other appellant before the lower appellate Court i. e. Babu Ram, prosecuted the appeal, which was heard and decided by the Civil Judge. The lower appellate Court found that the notice which was served upon the tenant by the plaintiffs was a good and valid notice. It also held that the sanction granted by the District Magistrate in the name of one of the two joint owners was a valid sanction. Lastly, the Court below held that the compromise entered into between one of the plaintiffs and the tenant did not affect the right of the other plaintiff to eject the tenant from the premises in suit. The decree of the learned Munsif for ejectment of the defendant was confirmed but, in view of the compromise only a decree for half of the arrears of rent and damages in favour of Babu ram was passed.

( 7 ) DISSATISFIED with the decision of the lower appellate Court Moti Lal (tenant) has come up in second appeal and the points canvassed in this Court were: (1) No proper sanction was obtained for the filing of the suit. (2) The compromise between one of the joint owners and the tenant operated as a waiver of the notice and, therefore, no decree for ejectment could be passed.

( 8 ) AS regards the first point, it has been contended before me that only Basant Lal had applied to the District Magistrate for sanction to eject the tenant, and as there were two owners qf the shop in question the permission should have been obtained by both the owners. This contention has little substance. The two brothers Basant Lal and Babu Ram were the joint owners of the shop and both of them had served a notice upon the tenant determining the tenancy. They could eject the tenant (Moti lal) but for the provisions contained in Section 3, U. P. Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1947, which provided. that no suit for ejectment could be brought without the