ORDER :- This second appeal has been filed by a tenant against whom a decree for ejectment has been passed by the lower appellate Court though the same was refused by the trial Court. The brief facts of the case so far as relevant for the decision of this second appeal were that the appellant was occupying a house as tenant of the plaintiff-respondent at a rent of Rs. 18/- per month. The house was governed by the provisions of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (to be hereinafter called as the Act). The plaintiff gave a notice dated 24-8-1964 to the defendant which was served on him on 9-9-1964. It was a composite notice under Sec. 3(1)(a) of the Act making a demand for arrears of rent and under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating his tenancy on the expiry of the requisite period. The defendant-appellant did not comply with that notice. The plaintiff therefore filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent against him in the year 1965. That suit was decreed by the trial Court on 13-8-1965. An appeal filed against that decree by the defendant was dismissed on 8-12-1965. Thereafter the defendant filed a second appeal in this Court. The main ground taken by the defendant in that appeal was that more than three months rent was not due by him when the notice dated 24-8-1964 was served on him and so he did not commit a default within the meaning of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act. As such he was not liable to ejectment so long as that Act continued in force. This plea of the defendant was accepted by this Court and his appeal was allowed on 6-3-1970. The plaintiffs suit wag dismissed in so far as it related to ejectment. In the meantime, the plaintiff was successful in obtaining possession over the premises in execution of the decree on 15-12-1965. After his appeal was allowed tile defendant applied for restoration of possession to him under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. While his application was pending the plaintiff filed a fresh suit against the defendant on 1-5-1970, seeking ejectment of the defendant and also praying for an injunction restraining the defendant from getting restitution of the possession which the plaintiff thought the defendant would set under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure as a result of the decision of this Court in second appeal. In this suit the bar of the Act was sought to be got over on the around that the State Government in a revision filed under Section 7-F of the Act had granted permission to the landlord under its order dated 16-8-1965 to file a suit tar ejectment against the tenant. But no fresh notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was given to the defendant terminating his tenancy which was sought to have been terminated under the previous notice dated 24-8-1964. This suit was contested by the defendant on the ground that he was not liable to ejectment and that he was legally entitled to restitution of his possession under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure after his second appeal had been allowed by this Court on 6-3-1970, and that the plaintiff could not restrain him from seeking his legal remedy by praying for an Injunction in that suit.

2. That suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 28-1-1971 mainly on the ground that the plaintiff himself was in possession upto that time and so the relief for ejectment was redundant and Could not be allowed. The plaintiff filed an appeal against that decision on 19-7-1971. While the appeal was pending the defendant was successful in getting back the possession over the house on 23-7-1971 in proceedings under Section 144 of the Code of Civil procedure. After that the plaintiff with the permission of the Court amended his plaint so as to claim simply relief of ejectment on the ground that the tenancy had been terminated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act by means of the notice dated 24-8-1964 and the bar of the Act had been removed by