JUDGMENT

1. This is defendants' second appeal, directed against the judgment and decree dated 25101977 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Faizabad, dismissing their first appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 2281975 passed by Munsif Sadar, Faizabad decreeing the plaintiff's suit No. 703 of 1969.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal have a long drawn out history. One Sheo Narain was a tenant of the shop in question, on a monthly rent of Rs. 10. Trilochan Singh had purchased the said property belonging to father of Ram Raghubir. This property was purchased through a sale deed dated 2591964. Trilochan Singh moved an application under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (No. 3 of 1947) (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Old, Act'), for leave to file a suit for eviction of Sheo Narain. This application was dismissed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Trilochan Singh went up in revision and the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad, vide his order dated l21968 allowed the revision and granted permission to file the suit for eviction. Sheo Narain, feeling aggrieved by the order, went up in revision before the State Government and the State Government had been pleased to stay the institution of the suit in pursuance of the order dated 121968 passed by the Additional Commissioner. The State Government allowed the revision on 19101968 filed b Sheo Narain and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner was set aside. During the pendency of this revision Sheo Narain died on 12101968. It may further be mentioned that Trilochan Singh had given notice of termination of tenancy to Sheo Narain on 31101966 and thereafter he gave another notice to Sheo Narain regarding termination of tenancy on 1921968 after permission had been obtained from the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad. It may be observed that if Sheo Narain had been alive, in pursuance of the order passed by the State Government setting aside the order of the Additional Commissioner, the colour of the case would have been changed. However, the plaintiff, in pursuance of the notice of termination of tenancy served on Sheo Narain, filed the present suit against the legal heirs alleging that Sheo Narain was only a statutory tenant and, therefore, the legal heirs we're liable for ejectment as the tenancy rights could not be inherited. The plaintiff alleged that he wanted to reconstruct the building in a different form and, therefore, the eviction of the legal heirs of the statutory tenant was essential, hence he filed the suit for ejectment.

3. The suit was resisted by the defendants. The contesting defendants averred that the order dated 19101968 of the State Government was challenged by the plaintiff in a writ petition but the same was dismissed. It was stated that their position is that of tenants and Sheo Narain was not a statutory tenant and, therefore, they had inherited the tenancy rights. The notice served under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was also challenged. The defendants also, by amending the suit, expressed their willingness to comply with the requirements of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) (hereinafter to be referred as the New Act'). This suit was decreed on 2441971. Smt. Genda Devi and others went up in appeal. The appeal was allowed and the case was remanded vide order dated 3181973. The observations, inter alia, were to the effect that the Munsif shall decide the additional issue relating to the status of the defendants as tenants of the disputed shop, by application of the 'New Act' and the availability of the benefit of Section 43 of the said Act. Other issues were also to be framed, whether the plaintiff had any cause of action against the defendants and whether plaintiff had sent any notice on 811967 and if so, what was its effect.

4. The learned Munsif, after considering all the issues, decreed the suit and the defendants, f