JUDGMENT S.S. Dhavan, J. - This is a defendant's second appeal from the concurrent decrees of the courts below ordering his ejectment from all accommodation. The plaintiff respondent Phunni Lal applied for permission under Sec. 3 of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act to eject the appellant, but it was refused both by the District Magistrate and the Commissioner. He then applied under Sec. 7-F to the State Government which granted the permission. Thereupon he filed the suit for ejectment. The appellant filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in this Court challenging the legality of the permission granted by the State Government, but it was dismissed. 2. In second appeal it was contended on behalf of the appellant by Mr. Ambika Prasad that the order of permission must be deemed to have been suspended during the pendency of the writ petition filed by the appellant. However he conceded that there was no stay order by this Court. The mere fact that a petition had been filed challenging the legality of the permission had no effect on its validity. 3. Secondly, learned counsel argued that the notice terminating the tenancy was invalid as it asked the appellant to vacate the entire house whereas he was occupying only half a portion of it. This argument has no substance. When a tenant is asked to vacate the accommodation, it means the accommodation occupied by him, and if the notice describes the accommodation as the "house", it is not thereby invalidated simply because the tenant is occupying a part of it. Moreover, the argument is based on an incorrect version of facts. The notice was read out before me and the learned counsel had to concede in the end that it asked the appellant to quit the portion of the house occupied by him. 4. No other point was urged. The appeal is the costs.