JUDGMENT

Dwivedi, J. - We allow the First Appeal and set aside the Judgement and decree of the Civil Judge in so far as he directs the ejectment of the appellant from the premises No. 31 (New) and 27 (Old) Sheocharan Lal Road, Allahabad. The judgement and decree awarding the amounts of Rs. 1,280/- as rent due Rs. 100/-as costs of notice and Rs 4,518/- as Bhumi Bhawan Kar will, however, stand subject to this modification that the first amount of Rs. 1,280/- is decreed by us as rent due by the appellant from the 1st of December, 1967 to 2nd of January, 1968. The judgment and decree awarding damages at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per month to the plaintiff respondent from the date of the suit till the recovery of actual possession are set aside. The remaining part of the judgment and decree of the trial court stands. But as regards the costs here as well as in the trial court parties shall pay get costs in accordance with their success and failure.

2. We shall give our reasons, later.

Dwivedi, J. - We are now giving reasons in support of our order dated October 28, 1970 dismissing the plaintiff's suit for ejectment of the defendant appellant.

4. We are concerned with a building situate at 31 sheocharan Lal Road, Allahabad. Admittedly it is an accommodation under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (herein below called the Act).

5. The former owner of the accommodation was on Ram Swarup Gupta. He let it out to the appellant, Ram Agyan Singh. The lease is a registered document. It was executed on October 13, 1952. The lease was for a term of ten years. The term was to commence from January 1, 1953.

6. Ram Swarup Gupta sold the accommodation to the plaintiffs by a registered sale deed, dated March 26, 1962. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted by them. The main relief claimed by them is the ejectment of the appellant from the accommodation. In their plaint they alleged that after the expiry of the term of the lease the appellant is a trespasser' even if he is still a tenant, he is liable to ejectment as he is a defaulter in payment of arrears of rent for more than three months. The appellants filed a written statement contesting their claim. He alleged that he is a statutory tenant under the Act and cannot be evicted without the permission of District Magistrate. He denied that he has defaulted in payment of rent. He also pleaded that he was holding over after the expiry the expiry of the term of the lease. The plaintiffs then filed a replication. In their replication they alleged that as under clause 20 of the lease-deed the appellant has agreed to waive the benefit of the Act, he cannot now claim to be a statutory tenant.

7. The Civil Judge decreed the suit. He found that the appellant was not holding over after the expiry of the term of the lease. He also found that prima face the appellant is protected by Section 3 of the Act. But he held that he cannot claim protection of Section 3 on account of clause 20 of the lease-deed. He also held that even if clause 20 is void, the entire lease will be void and that the appellant's possession will then be that of a trespasser from the very outset Section 3 will according not apply. In the end, he also held that the order passed under Rule 6 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Rules for release of the accommodation in favour of the plaintiffs amounts to permission of the District Magistrate under Section 3 So the suit should be deemed to have been filed with the permission of the District Magistrate under Section 3.

8. Obviously the two nerve-centre issues of the case are : (1) whether the appellant can claim protection of Section 3 of the Act; (2) whether clause 20 of the lease deed bars him from seeking that protection. The other issues on which the civil Judge has recorded findings are appendages to these central issues. Accordingly we will first examine these two issues.

9. Section 3(1) of the Act, in so far as it is material,