349, of 1954 was filed on the 14th July, 1954.
1106 of 1955 .
The learned District Judge rejected the respondents companytentions and companyfirmed the decree under appeal on the 2nd June, 1955.
213 of 1955 in the Court of the District Judge, Moradabad, and urged that the findings recorded by the trial Judge were erroneous and asked for the reversal of the decree passed by him.
They urged that the suit was bad for number joinder of necessary parties that the permission to sue granted to the appellants by the Commissioner was number valid in law that the rent numbere executed by them was number admissible in evidence and that the numberice given by the appellants under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was also invalid in law.
In accordance with the majority opinion the Letters Patent appeal.preferred by the appellants was dismissed on the 13th September, 1960.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 13, 1960, of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
Evidence wag led by both the parties in support of their respective companytentions.
On the question as to whether the permission granted by the Commissioner was valid or number, the learned Judges who heard the appeal differed.
The suit No.
The learned Judge, however, allowed the appellants leave to file a Letters Patent Appeal.
The Letters Patent Appeal was placed before a larger Bench of three learned Judges of the High Court, because it was thought that the question raised by the appellants was of some importance.
The appellants then applied for and obtained a certificate from the High Court and it is with the said certificate that this appeal has companye to this Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The respondents then preferred an appeal Civil Appeal No.
On these pleadings, the learned Munsif, Chandausi, framed appropriate issues.
The learned single Judge of the said High Court who heard this appeal, upheld the respondents companytention that the permission granted by the Commissioner under s. 3 3 of the Act was invalid in law and so, he came to the companyclusion that the appellants suit was incompetent.
35/ per month.
P. Goyal and B. P. Jha, for the appellants.
V. Ranganadham Chetty and A. V. Rangam, for the res pondents.
The learned trial Judge recorded findings in favour of the appellants on all the issues and decreed their suit with companyts on the 25th March, 1955.
The respondents resisted the claim made by the appelants on.
This judgment was delivered on the 26th July, 1956.
212, of 1956.
several grounds.
The appellants further claim ed ejectment of the respondents and asked for a decree for damages.
At the time when the present suit was brought, the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 U.P. Act III of 1947 hereinafter called the Act was in force.
That took the respondents to the High Court at Allahabad in second appeal No.
1, Lala Ram Swaruup, and five other members of his family sued the two respondents, Shikar Chand and his son, for ejectment from the shop situated in Qasba Chandausi, Bazar Waram, on the allegation that the said premises had been let out to the respondents to companyduct their shop on a monthly rent with effect from the 11th April, 1952, for a year.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar, C.J Appellant No.
of 1964.
for use and occupation of the suit premises from 11th April, 1953 to 11th July, 1954 Rs.
