JUDGMENT :- This is a defendant's appeal and it arises out of a suit brought be the plaintiff-respondents for ejectment as well as for recovery of rent and damages. The allegations of the plaintiff-respondents were that defendant-appellant was tenant of the house in suit paying a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-. Permission under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act had been obtained on 10th September, 1962 by the original landlord who was plaintiff in the suit. The landlord needed the house for his personal residence and on that account he had obtained permission. The defendant was oven a notice of ejectment on 1st of October, 1982, but he did not vacate. Thereafter again a notice on 5th February, 1964 for ejectment was given which was served upon the defendant on 6th February, 1964. The defendant however, did not vacate the premises. On these allegations the suit for ejectment as well as for arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 72.50 n. p. together with damages for use and occupation at Rs. 400/- was filed. The plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit. His heirs were duly brought on record who are now respondents in this case. The suit was contested on the grounds which gave rise to the following issues :-

1. Whether the permission granted under Section 3 of U.P. Act III of 1947 is invalid as alleged in W. S. ?

2. Whether the notice dated 5-2-1964 is invalid ?

3. Whether the above mentioned notice stands waived ?

4. Whether the defendants paid Rs. 38/- towards taxes ? If so, is he entitled to set it adjusted ?

5. Whether the plaintiff refused to accept the rent ? If so, its effect ?

6. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?

The findings of the learned Munsif were that permission granted under Section 3 of U.P. Act III of 1947 was valid. He, however, held that notice dated 5th February, 1964 stood waived and as such tenancy of the defendant could not be said to have been terminated. On issue No. 4 the finding was that defendant had deposited only Rs. 38/- as Nagar Mahapalika Tax and adjusting this amount the plaintiff was held to be entitled to recover Rs. 434.50P. as arrears of rent. The suit for ejectment was dismissed. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-respondents. The learned Civil and Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for ejectment as well. Feeling aggrieved the defendant has come up in appeal to this Court.

2. Three points were urged before me. The first point was that actually notice for ejectment relied upon in the plaint was of 1962 and, therefore, the Civil Judge was not right in holding that notice of 1964 was a valid notice of ejectment. The other contention was that notice for ejectment of 1964 also was invalid as nowhere intention to terminate the tenancy appeared. The third point was that permission under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act did not hold good inasmuch as once the original landlord died and the need was personal his heirs could not take advantage of the same.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant Sri S. Rahman and the learned counsel for the respondents Sri Akhilesh Sahai. So far as the first point its concerned I find that no doubt in paragraph 4 of the plaint it was mentioned that tenancy was terminated by means of giving a notice. It was mentioned that tenancy was terminated by giving a notice of 1st of October, 1962 and that in para. 8 of the plaint it was mentioned that cause action arose on 10th of January, 1963, but I find that it was also mentioned in paragraph 5 of the plaint that the plaintiff again served a notice of termination on 5th Feb., 1964 which was served on 6th February, 1964 on the defendant and in spite of that notice of termination which gave 30 days clear notice the defendant had not vacated the house. What is more I find that on the date of issues, namely, 8th February, 1966 not only a clear statement was given by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff th