MANMATHA NATH SADHUKHAN Vs. ABDUS SOBHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit by the Plaintiff for the recovery of possession of a portion of premises No. 23, Colootola Street, Calcutta, for a decree for Rs. 1,840, being the arrears of rent and for mesne profits. The case of the Plaintiff is that he is the owner of the said premises and that the Defendant was a monthly tenant under him in respect of the entire top floor (excepting the separated portion) and one room on the ground floor of the said premises at a rental of Rs. 80 per month. It is pleaded that the Defendant has not paid to the Plaintiff or deposited with the Rent Controller any rent in respect of the said, premises since the month of April, 1947, and therefore, the tenancy of the Defendant has been terminated ipso facto by reason of the provisions contained in Section 12(3) of the Rent Act of 1948. This suit was instituted on May 14, 1949.

(2.) The written statement was filed by the Defendant in this suit on July 13, 1949. It is a long and prolix written statement drafted by an attorney. Repeated comments have been made by this Court against the practice of attorneys drawing pleadings. I myself have said so on a number of occasions. It seems to me that these comments had so far gone unheeded. I, therefore, propose in this case to take a more drastic step this time and disallow the costs of drawing the written statement to the attorney as between him and his client. The written statement is long and verbose and it sets out in extenso two long letters in the body of the written statement. The rule of the pleading is that they should not be so set out in the body of the pleading and it is the effect only of the correspondence that should be briefly stated and if the correspondence is of a great materiality, it may be annexed to the pleading. That is the requirement of Order VI, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) Mr. Rahman, who appears for the Defendant, raises the following issues: