ORDER

Jagmohan Lal, J. - This second appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent filed by the Plaintiff-Respondent after obtaining the permission of the DM as required by Section 3 of the UP (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (to be hereinafter called as the Act). The suit was decreed by the trial Court. An appeal filed by the Defendant against that decree was also dismissed. The Defendant has now filed this second appeal.

2. I heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The only point that was urged before me by Sri D.S. Bajpai, learned Counsel for the Appellant was that the permission obtained by the landlord from the DM was not a valid permission in so far as it had been obtained at a time when the tenant had ceased to be the tenant of the premises as his tenancy had been terminated by the landlord by giving a notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. According to him it is necessary that the tenancy should subsist upto the time the permission is obtained and it is only after obtaining the permission that the tenancy should be terminated by the landlord by giving him a notice u/s 106 Transfer of Property Act. This contention of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted in view of the clear language of Section 3 and the consistent view held by this Court on the subject. Section 3 provides that no suit shall without the permission of the DM, b filed in any Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the ground mentioned therein.

3. So far as obtaining the permission of the DM is concerned, the section do not say at what stage it shall be acquire or at whose application it shall given or what will be the proceed to be followed by the DM before growing the permission. This section only creates a bar on the filing of a suit in any Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation unless such permission of the DM has been obtained, putting out of consideration for purposes of this appeal the grounds mentioned in Clauses (a) to (g) of that section. The word 'tenant' used in the expression 'suit...against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation' means a person who had occupied the accommodation as a tenant. It is not necessary that his tenancy should also continue upto the date of the filing of the suit. Obviously in the case a tenant from month to month the tenancy has to be determined by a notice u/s 106, Transfer of Property Act before filing the suit. I cannot conceive of a suit for ejectment being filed against such a tenant if the word 'tenant' means a person whose contractual relationship of tenancy with his landlord subsists upto the date of the suit. Therefore the word 'tenant' in the aforesaid expression necessarily includes a person who had entered the premises as a tenant even though his tenancy has been determined by a notice before filing the suit. Sri Bajpai referred to a similar provision contained in Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act in which the legislature has specifically provided for such a suit against a tenant including a person whose tenancy had been determined. This means that in the term 'tenant' Delhi legislature has specifically included a person whose tenancy has been determined before filing the suit. In my opinion the draftsman who drafted the Delhi Act has simply made explicit what was already implicit in the said expression. The learned Counsel for the Appellant himself conceded that so far as the filing of the suit is concerned it is not necessary that the Defendant's tenancy should continue upto that date as the same will have to be determined in the case of month to month tenancy by means of a notice u/s 106, Transfer of Property Act before filing such suit. What he contends is that the tenancy must subsist upto the time the permission of the DM is obtained. For that purpose we shall have to read some words in Section 3 which do not actually exist thereby imagining that the permission o