ORDER G.D. Sahgal, J. - This is a Defendant's second appeal. The Plaintiff-Respondent filed the suit against the Appellant for his ejectment from an accommodation and for recovery of arrears of rent. The provisions of the U.P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 applied to the accommodation as it was situated in the town of Sitapur. Before the filing of the suit for ejectment the Respondent made an application u/s 3 of the Act to the RC and EO exercising the powers of the D.M. Permission to file a suit for ejectment was granted on 27-12-1965 to the Plaintiff on condition that the suit against the Defendant-Appellant could be filed only after the expiry of the period of one month from that date, this period of one month being allowed to the Defendant for making arrangement for accommodation else where. Before the period of one month from 27-12-1965 could expire the Plaintiff, however, gave notice to the Defendant u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 8-1-1966 calling upon him to vacate the accommodation in suit after the expiry of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. This notice was served on the Defendant on 13-1-1966. The suit was then filed on 15-2-1966. 2. At the trial the Defendant did not raise any contest in regard to the amount of rent claimed against him. The only point that he raised was that the notice was premature having been given to him before the expiry of the period of one month from 27-12-1965, thus violating the terms of the permission granted to the Plaintiff. 3. This point did not find favour either with the learned Munsif who tried the suit or with the learned Civil Judge who heard the appeal. It is in these circumstances that the Defendant has come up in second appeal before this Court. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and am of the opinion that the appeal has no force and that the only point raised in the case before me in 2nd appeal was correctly decided by the two Courts below. 5. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and am of the opinion that the appeal has no force and that the only point raised in the case before me in 2nd appeal was correctly decided by the two Courts below. 5. Section 3 of the UP (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act provides that no suit shall be filed without the permission of the DM in any Civil Court against a tenant for his ejectment from any accommodation except on one or more of the grounds contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 3. The suit has not been filed on any of the grounds contained in that sub-section. It has been filed on the ground of the permission of the DM. The restriction under this provision of law is against the filing of a suit for eviction and not for the termination of the tenancy of the tenant by the landlord. Section 3 does not prohibit the giving of a notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act by the landlord to the tenant terminating the latter's tenancy after the expiry of the period prescribed under that section. The only ban that Section 3 puts against the exercise of the right by the landlord is his right to file a suit unless the conditions contained under that section are satisfied. Thus if the Plaintiff had already terminated the tenancy of the Defendant by a notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act before he came to the DM (in this case the RC and EO) for permission u/s 3 of the Act, there would be no bar to his filing a suit for eviction of the Defendant on the basis of that notice terminating the tenancy even though that notice might have been given prior to the obtaining of the permission or the period of the notice had expired prior to the granting of the permission by the DM. The suit could be filed only after the permission had been granted though the tenancy might have been terminated earlier. In this case the DM granted permission u/s 3 on condition that the suit will be filed only after the expiry of one month from the date of the order. The permission did not place any ban on the notice being sent to the Defendant terminating his tenancy before the expiry of that period. In this case the DM granted permission u/s 3 on condition that the suit will be filed only after the expiry of one month from the date of the order. The permission did not place any ban on the notice being sent to the Defendant terminating his tenancy before the expiry of that period. In the circumstances if the notice was sent before the period of one month expired it cannot be said that the notice was premature. The sending of the notice did not amount to the filing of the suit for eviction. The tenancy is not terminated from the date of the service of the notice but is terminated only after the period of notice expires and in this case the period of notice expired on 13-2-1966. Even the tenancy, therefore, was terminated more than one month after the date of the granting of the permission u/s 3. The suit was filed much later. No condition, therefore, of the grant of the permission u/s 3 has been violated. The notice was in no case premature. The suit has been rightly decreed. 6. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed summarily.