JUDGMENT S.S. Dhavan, J. - This is a tenant's second appeal from the decree of the 1st Addl. Civil Judge, Kanpur dismissing their appeal from a decree for ejectment passed against them by the trial court. The appeal raises an important question of law namely, whether an agreement between a mortgagor and mortgagee permitting the former to continue in possession of the mortgaged accommodation on payment of rent to the mortgagee is illegal on the ground that it violates the provisions of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act or would defeat the purpose of that Act. The facts very briefly are these. The defendant appellants mortgaged with possession their house to the plaintiff-respondent for a sum of Rs. 6,000/- under a duly registered mortgage deed. The house was occupied by several tenants, but the appellants lived in a portion of it. Under the mortgage deed the mortgagee acquired the right to realise rent from the tenants in lieu of interest. Simultaneously with the mortgage deed a separate rent note was executed by the appellants by which they undertook to pay the mortgagee a sum of Rs. 20/- p.m. and were permitted to continue in occupation of their portion. Subsequently they defaulted in payment and the mortgagee terminated the tenancy after the service of the usual notice of demand for rent. 2. The defendants resisted the suit, and one of the pleas in defence was that the agreement of tenancy was illegal being contrary to the provisions of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The trial court upheld this plea and declared the agreement under the rent note illegal. It dismissed the suit for ejectment. On appeal by the landlord the learned Civil Judge reversed this finding and held that there was nothing illegal in this transaction. He allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for ejectment. The tenants have come to this court in second appeal. 3. In my opinion the decision of the lower appellate court is correct. It is contended by the appellants that the agreement of tenancy between them and the mortgagee was illegally being in violation of Section 7 of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The tenants have come to this court in second appeal. 3. In my opinion the decision of the lower appellate court is correct. It is contended by the appellants that the agreement of tenancy between them and the mortgagee was illegally being in violation of Section 7 of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act. I do not agree Sub-Section (1) of Section 7 enjoins that "every landlord shall within seven days after an accommodation becomes vacant by his ceasing to occupy it or the tenant vacated or otherwise ceasing to occupy it or by termination of tenancy or by release from requisition or in any other manner whatsoever, give notice of vacancy in writing to the District Magistrate." 4. Sub-Section (2) provides that the District Magistrate may by general or special order require a landlord to let or not to let any person any accommodation which is or has fallen vacant or is about to fall vacant. 5. The combined effect of these two sub-section is that the right of the landlord to let an accommodation which has fallen vacant has been taken away and vested in the District Magistrate. By implication the landlord is prohibited from letting out the accommodation himself after it has fallen vacant in any manner whatsoever. The appellants contend that the agreement of tenancy with the mortgagee was in defiance of this provision and therefore illegal. I cannot agree. The landlord is required to give notice of a vacancy to the District Magistrate only when the accommodation falls vacant. But where an owner mortgages his house with possession but is permitted to continue in occupation on payment of rent, it cannot be said that the accommodation had become vacant within the meaning of Section 7. The arrangement between the mortgagor and the mortgagee under which the former is permitted to continue to live in the mortgaged house is peculiar, but I do not think that its result is to make the accommodation vacant. It would be somewhat absurd to argue that a house falls vacant even though the occupant continues in occupation and has no intention of vacating it. I do not think that Section 7 was intended to apply to a case where an owner mortgages his house with possession but permitted to continue to live in it on payment of rent of the mortgagee. 6. I do not think that Section 7 was intended to apply to a case where an owner mortgages his house with possession but permitted to continue to live in it on payment of rent of the mortgagee. 6. The appellants contend that at any rate an agreement of this nature would defeat the provisions of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act which was passed for the purposes of controlling the letting of accommodation in view of the prevailing shortage. I do not agree. The Control of Rent and Eviction Act was not intended to curtail the rights of an owner to raise money on the security of any accommodation owned by him and if the terms of the mortgage or of any collateral agreement permit him to continue to live in the house on payment of what may be called rent, no purpose of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act is defeated. 7. The appeal is dismissed.