JUDGMENT R.B. Lal, J. - By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner prays for quashing the Judgment and order of the Additional District Judge, Mathura, dated 16.11.1977. 2. Shri Dhar Chandra Das Shastri was owner of a house and the present petitioner Harendra Chandra Dev was its tenant. The landlord made a gift of the house to Shyamanand Sanskrit Vidyalaya Vrindaban on 13.9.64. Shri Dhar Chandra Das obtained permission of the District Magistrate under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (briefly the Act) for filing a suit for ejectment against the tenant (the petitioner). Shri Dhar Chandra Das and Shyamanand Sanskrit Vidyalaya filed suit No. 56 of 1966 in the Court of the Munsif Mathura for ejectment of the tenant (petitioner) on the basis of the aforesaid permission. That suit was withdrawn with permission to file a fresh suit and fresh suit No. 461 of 1966 was filed in that Court on the basis of that permission. That suit was dismissed on 13.12.1968 on the technical ground that Shyamanand Sanskrit Vidyalaya was not a registered body and no gift could be made in its favour. An appeal against this judgment was also unsuccessful. Thereafter Shri Dhar Chandra Das made a gift of the house in favour of Akhil Bhartiya Madhav Godeshwar Mahasabha, Vrindaban by a registered deed dated 16.3.1971. It was said that the Sanskrit Vidyalaya was under the management of the said Mahasabha. Shri Dhar Chandra Das and the said Mahasbha brought a suit for ejectment against the tenant (petitioner) on 21.5.71. This suit was brought on three grounds : first, on the ground of the permission dated 24.4.1966 which had been granted by the District Magistrate; the second ground was that the tenant was in arrears of rent and had not paid the same within the time prescribed by law after service of notice. The third ground was that the tenant had substantially diminished the value of the accommodation by causing damage to it. The tenant resisted the suit and challenged the validity of the gift-deed in favour of the aforesaid Mahasabha. He also contended that the permission granted by District Magistrate could not be used after the dismissal of the previous suit. The trial Court did not accept these contentions. The tenant resisted the suit and challenged the validity of the gift-deed in favour of the aforesaid Mahasabha. He also contended that the permission granted by District Magistrate could not be used after the dismissal of the previous suit. The trial Court did not accept these contentions. It, however, held that second and third ground of arrears of rent and causing damage to the accommodation were not made out. It decreed the suit for eviction in view of the permission granted by the District Magistrate. 3. The tenant filed revision in the Court of the District Judge and the same was dismissed by the Ist Addl. District Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 16.11.1977. 4. By this writ petition the tenant has challenged the revisional order. 5. Shri Dhar Chandra Das died during the pendency of this petition and his heirs were not brought on the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement before the Court on 9.12.1983 that he did not wish to bring the legal representative and heirs on Shri Dhar Chandra Das on the record. It was directed that the case had abated against the said party and the fact be brought to the notice of the Court at the time of the hearing of the writ petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the permission dated 20.4.1966 had exhausted itself when the earlier suit No. 461 of 1966 was dismissed, and therefore, no subsequent suit for ejectment could be based on the same permission. This contention was raised before the revisional Court as well and was repelled. For its view the revisional Court placed reliance on the decision Prahlad Das v. Ganga Saran, 1957 ALJ 804 D.B. It was held by the Division Bench that : "Where it is not shown that the permission was granted to file a single suit or that it had been specified in it that a second suit could not be filed on its basis, the permission cannot in the circumstances exhaust itself simply because the first suit filed on its basis was dismissed on some technical ground". 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any authority to the contrary. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any authority to the contrary. The principle laid down in aforesaid decision is fully applicable to the instant case. Suit No. 461 of 1966 was dismissed on a technical ground, namely that no gift could be made in favour of Shyamanand Sanskrit Vidyalaya, because it was not a registered body. It is obvious that the suit was not dismissed on merits. It cannot, in these circumstances be said that the permission granted by the District Magistrate had exhausted itself. 9. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the permission was granted in the year 1966 and no suit for eviction could be filed on its basis in the year 1971. He has urged that Article 113 of the Limitation Act was applicable and the same provided limitation of three years only. This argument has no legal merit. suit No. 461 of 1966 was dismissed with costs.