( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff-landlords, against the decree dated 22-9-1962, passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in Civil Appeal No. 69-A of 1960, re-numbered as Civil Appeal No. 73-A of 1961, affirming the decree dated 18-10-1960, passed by the Ist Civil Judge IInd Class, Jabalpur, in Civil Suit No. 28-A of 1960.

( 2 ) THE appellants purchased the suit house from Shyam Krishna and others. Out of the vendors one Amitabh was a minor. The family of the vendors is indisputably governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law. The sale deed Ex. F/13 was executed on 30-5-1958, wherein although the minor's father was a party to the sale, the minor was represented through his next friend the mother. After the appellants purchased the house, they served a notice of attornment dated 20-61958 (Ex. P/1) on Hiralal, the predecessor of the present respondents, who was a tenant of the vendors. A similar notice of the same date Ex. P/3 was served by the vendors as well. But in reply to that notice, the tenants as per the communication dated 24-6-1958 (Ex. P/7), asserted that as one of the vendors was a minor, the vendors should prove their title and he refused to recognise the vendees as his landlords. Consequent on that, the appellants exercised their option for forfeiture of the tenancy and gave a notice, dated 8-8-1958 (Ex. P/2), forfeiting the tenancy. In that notice the tenant was required to vacate within 24 hours of the receipt of notice. Therefore, the present suit for eviction and for damages for use and occupation and subsequent damages, was filed on 13-8-1958.

( 3 ) AT the time the suit was filed, the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent control Order, 1949 was in force. The Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control act, 1955 was applied to this region with effect from 1-1-1959. At the time the suit was filed, it was necessary to obtain the permission of the Rent Controller to determine the tenancy, as required by Clause 13 of the C. P. and Berar Letting of houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. But the present suit was filed without obtaining any such permission.

( 4 ) THE tenant's defence was that the sale in favour of the plaintiffs was void, as one of the vendors was a minor and the permission of the District Judge had not been obtained. Therefore, according to him, the plaintiffs did not become his landlords and, therefore, they could not sue either for eviction or for claiming arrears of rent.

( 5 ) THE learned Judge of the trial court dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that no permission of the Rent Controller had been obtained and, therefore, the suit itself was not tenable. On the other hand, the learned appellate Judge expressed the opinion that Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 was attracted, and for want of permission of the District Judge for the said sale, title did not vest in the plaintiffs and consequently, they could not become landlords of the defendant. In that view the trial Court's decree, dismissing the suit, was upheld.

( 6 ) IN the present appeal it is urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 is not at all attracted with reference to the joint interest of a minor in the joint family property. Therefore, no permission of the District Judge was necessary, as the property was not the exclusive property of the minor. So far as this contention is concerned, I am in agreement with the suggestion of the learned counsel for the appellants. Section 8 of the Act does not apply to the joint interest of a minor in a family property which the manager is competent to dispose of under the general provisions of the Hindu Law, namely, for the benefit of the minor or for family need etc. Thus, there can be no doubt that the learned Appellate Judge was wrong in holding that the plaintiffs did not become the landlords for want of permission of the District Judge under Section 8 of the