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