JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, M. - This is a review application dated September 22, 1980 against judgment and decree dated September 4, 1980 alleging second appeal No. 116(z) of 1976-77/Hamirpur - Baddu v. Paltu setting aside judgment and decree passed by the courts below rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the C.P.C. as the Asami rights or sub-tenancy of the defendants was not determined by giving notice, which was a condition precedent to the filing of the suit. Relying on Smt. Vidyawati v. Board of Revenue 1974 R.D. 69, 1972 A.W.R. 207 as A.W.R.P. 894 (H.C.) was disapproved. 2. It has been argued by Mr. S.N. Pandey, learned Advocate for the respondent applicant that a Full Bench of the Board consisting of Sarvasri Jageshwar Prasad, R.P. Gupta and Sri D.S. Misra, Members in Ramdeo v. Genda Tewari and others Second Appeal No. 105 of 1977-78 decided on March 2, 1981 and Dhanpal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1745, it has been held that no notice for determining the tenancy rights of Asami is necessary before the filing of the suit under Section 202 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Therefore, the view taken in the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the review is liable to be allowed. 3. It has been argued in reply that the view taken by the Full Bench of the Board is erroneous and the view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1979 (S.C.) page 1745 is not applicable to the cases under Section 202 of Act I of 1951 as consistent view has been taken by the Hon'ble High Court in a Full Bench of 3 Judges, then by a Full Bench of 6 Judges of the Hon'ble Court that notice of determining the sub-tenancy is a condition precedent to the filing of such suits and that the Supreme Court's view is regarding notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act in eviction cases of tenants of accommodations under the States Rent Control Acts. Therefore, the view taken in the impugned order is totally correct and is not liable to be interfered with that wrong view taken regarding any law is no ground for review. 4. The question referred to the Full Bench of the Board of Revenue in Ramdeo v. Genda Tewari and others (supra) decided on Mar. Therefore, the view taken in the impugned order is totally correct and is not liable to be interfered with that wrong view taken regarding any law is no ground for review. 4. The question referred to the Full Bench of the Board of Revenue in Ramdeo v. Genda Tewari and others (supra) decided on Mar. 2, 1981 by learned Members Servsri R.P. Gupta, Jageshwar Prasad and D.S. Mishra, Member, was "Whether notice for determining the tenancy rights of Asami is necessary or not before filing the suit under Section 202 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act." The learned Members of the above Full Bench of the Board relying on Dhanpal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1745 have held that the cases of Zahid Ali Khan v. Sattey and others 1968 R.D. 367, Ghazi v. Waqf Alal Aulad 1969 A.W.R. 602, Aziz Alam and others v. D.D.C. U.P. 1972 R.D. 266 (F.B.) of the Allahabad High Court consisting of three Judges. Prem Singh v. Hukum Singh A.I.R. 1974 Alld. 50=1974 R.D. 69 Full Bench of 5 Judges of the Allahbad High Court. Har Prasad v. Gaon Sabha 1975 R.D. 193 decided by Sri S.S. Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue. Ram Pratap v. Lok Nath and others 1977 R.D. 189, decided by Mr. H.N. Agrawal, Member, Board of Revenue and Smt. Jubba v. Ram Dular Second Appeal No. 190 of 1976-77/Alld. decided by Mr. I.B. Singh, Member, Board of Revenue on August 28, 1980 are no longer good law in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1979 (S.C.) 1945 (supra). The above Full Bench of the Board of Revenue approved the Division Bench decision of the High Court Smt. Vidya Wati Rathore v. Board of Revenue 1971 A.W.R. 894, Gaon Sabha v. Lal Singh 1976 R.D. 15 decided by Sri N.B. Lal, Member, Board of Revenue, Buddha v. Madan Lal 1976 R.D. 336 decided by Mr. G.S. Sial, Member of Board of Revenue. 5. G.S. Sial, Member of Board of Revenue. 5. I have read A.I.R. 1979 (S.C.) 1745 (Supra) several times and the decision of the above Full Bench cases of the Hon'ble High Court and of the Board and have considered the matter thoroughly and I am of a very firm opinion that the learned Member of the (Supra) Full Bench of the Board has neither applied their minds judiciously regarding the effect of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by them nor have considered the scope of the question referred to them and rather they have misdirected themselves in answering the question referred to them and with great humility, I fail to persuade myself to subscribe to their view, because the ruling of the Supreme Court is neither directly nor indirectly applicable to revenue cases. 6. The determination of Asami rights by giving notice is not governed in any way by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. They have misapplied the Supreme Court's ruling to the revenue cases in a sweeping manner wrongly. Therefore, their decision has got no binding force and in view of the matter it is not at all necessary for me to refer the matter to a larger Full Bench of the Board of Revenue, before deciding this review application for the following reasons:- (1) Because the matter decided by the Full Bench of the court cannot be said to be a settled view of law based on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not even indirectly referred to other notices of determination required by any other law. (2) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1979 (S.C.) 1745 (supra) disapproved several Supreme Court cases and overruled several Full Bench cases of different High Courts but did not overrule any Full Bench case of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court because of U.P. Rent Control Act itself provides for giving notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the State Rent Act requires the giving of a particular type of notice in order to get a particular kind of relief such will have to be given. (3) Because a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court following his earlier decision in K. Sukumaran v. S. Neelakanthan (1976) 2 Mad. (3) Because a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court following his earlier decision in K. Sukumaran v. S. Neelakanthan (1976) 2 Mad. L.J. 84 held that notice to quit under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was not necessary for seeking an evidence of a tenant under the Tamil Nadu Rent Act and he pointed out the difference of opinion expressed in the various decisions of the Madras High Court from time to time including single Judge decision, division bench decision and many other cases and the full bench decision in the case of Rawal and Co. v. K.G. Ramchandran A.I.R. 1967 Mad. 57 which was approved by the Majority decision of the Supreme Court in Rawal and Co. v. K.G. Ram Chandran 1974 (2) S.C.R. 629 which was directly a case in relation to Section 106 of the T.P. Act. In spite of it a Division Bench of that Court in B. Kalyan Sundaram v. A.R. Matrajam 1969 (2) Mad. L.J. 585 stuck to the view that notice was necessary but the single Judge did not refer the matter to be decided by a Full Bench and held that under the State Rent Control Act notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not necessary. Therefore, I muster the courage to hold that there is no need for me to refer the matter to be decided by a larger Full Bench of the Board of Revenue. 7. The seven Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in deciding V. Dhanpal Cheettiar's case, held that for eviction under Rent Control Acts of the various States notice under Sec. 106 of the T.P. Act was superfluous and a surplusage and laid down for the whole of India that such a notice was not necessary unless provided by the State Rent Control Act. The reasoning had been that in spite of the determination by notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act, unless a case for eviction was made out under the States Rent Control Acts under their provisions, the tenant remained a tenant and his tenancy rights did not come to an end and for this reason the said law was laid down that such a notice of determination under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not necessary unless provided by the State Rent Control Act. 8. 8. The question referred to the (Supra) Full Bench of the Board was not as to whether a determination notice under Sec. 106 of Transfer of property Act was necessary or not before filing the suit of ejectment under Section 202 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It was in the following terms:- "Whether notice for determining the tenancy right of the Asami is necessary or not filing the suit under Section 202 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act." Thus it was only to be determined whether a notice for determination of Asami rights was necessary or not before filing the suit for ejectment. The analogy of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act before filing eviction cases under Rent Control Acts of the various States have been unnecessarily and wrongly applied while deciding the above question referred to the (supra) Full Bench of the Board Hon'ble Supreme Court held that notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was superfluous and unnecessary because tenancy rights of the tenant of the building did not come to an end and by such notice of determination of his tenancy rights because the provisions of Rent Control Act of the various States intervened and their provisions were super-imposed over the contractual rights of the parties and the eviction suit could not be successfully prosecuted unless the conditions imposed by the Rent Control Act of the State for eviction were fulfilled. It is not the case in cases under Section 202 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 9. In case of ejectment of Asamis and Sub-Tenants from year to year under Section 202 of Act 1 of 1951 since a long time, determination notice has been made obligatory and a condition precedent before filing the suit by the ruling of the Allahabad High Court and Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad. This is a practice of a long time and such practices are normally never interfered with even by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 10. In cases decided by the Hon'ble High Court and by the Hon'ble Members of the Board holding that a determination notice was a condition precedent before filing the suit for ejectment of an Asami or of a tenant from year to year and unless it is complied with there exists no cause of action for filing the suit for ejectment. In cases decided by the Hon'ble High Court and by the Hon'ble Members of the Board holding that a determination notice was a condition precedent before filing the suit for ejectment of an Asami or of a tenant from year to year and unless it is complied with there exists no cause of action for filing the suit for ejectment. Reasons for so holding have been very well explained in the said rulings of the Hon'ble High Court and in the decisions of the Board. They need not be reproduced. 11. The learned Members of the above Full Bench of the Board have wrongly opined that in the above case decided by the Hon'ble High Court or by learned Members of the Board, the question of the determination notice was neither directly involved nor it was considered in them, and that mere filing of the suit itself amounted to determination of Asami rights or tenancy rights from year to year. It was the main question which was involved in them as to whether a determination notice of Asami rights or tenancy rights from year to year was necessary or not before filing the suit of ejectment and where such notices were found lacking such eviction suits were thrown out on the ground that without prior determination notices to the filing of the suits no cause of action existed. 12. It is general rule that the rulings of the Hon'ble High Court of judicature at Allahabad have got a binding effect over the Board of Revenue as it is under the superintendence of the Hon'ble High Court and it has been consistently laid down by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and even by Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases. 12. It is general rule that the rulings of the Hon'ble High Court of judicature at Allahabad have got a binding effect over the Board of Revenue as it is under the superintendence of the Hon'ble High Court and it has been consistently laid down by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and even by Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases. 13 It is true if the Hon'ble Supreme Court decides any matter, finally it is binding on all subordinate courts including High Courts and Board of Revenue, because such a decision makes the law to be a settled one on certain points, but if the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is on a different point in a different context and is not directly on all fours applicable to the matter involved, and if there are Full Bench cases involved, and if there are Full Bench cases of the Hon'ble High Court holding consistently (by decision of Full Bench of three Hon'ble Judges, and larger Full Bench of 5 Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court), that determination notice is necessary before filing the suit as is the case at present. It was not desirable at all for the Hon'ble Members of the Board to hold that such cases and other cases decided by the Members of the Board following the said Full Bench decisions of the Hon'ble High Court, were no longer good law. 14. In view of the matter, as the Supreme Court's case of V. Dhanpal Chhettiar (supra) is not all applicable to the point referred to the Supra Full Bench of the Board and as it wrongly applied it to the question referred, therefore, the decision of the Supra Full Bench of the Board is not binding in view of the Full Bench decisions of the High Court on this very point, which are binding on us. 15. Therefore, the second appeal decided by me has been correctly decided following the decisions mentioned above of the Hon'ble High Court are decisions of the learned Members of the Board hence this review application has got no force and is liable to be rejected. 16. In view of the above, this review application is hereby rejected.