SHEW PRASAD AGARWALLA Vs. ANIL GANGULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit by Shew Prasad Agarwalla and Kunj Behari Agarwalla, sons of late Hariram Agarwalla, for, amongst others, declarations that their tenancy in room No. 50 in the ground floor of 201b, Mahatma Gandhi Road, (formerly Harrison Road) subsists, that the creation of a tenancy therein for the second defendant, Gopiram Agarwalla, by the first defendant, the receiver in a certain suit of this Court, is a nullity and that the partnership between their father, Hariram, and the" aforesaid defendant, Gopiram, entered into on or about September 16, 1947, was dissolved on July 16, 1957, by service of a notice of that date, failing which a decree by this Court for dissolution. These declarations apart, two other reliefs they pray the Court for may be noticed: (i) Khas possession of room No. 50 and (ii) accounting against the second defendant, Gopiram.

(2.) ORIGINALLYLONG before the receiver had come to be appointedhariram and his "working partner", one Kartick Chandra Sil, were the tenants of the shop room in controversy on a monthly rent of Rs. 55 according to the Hindi Calendar month. Kartick was not heard of since the Great Calcutta Killings of August, 1946. Presumably he left behind him surviving no heir. Hariram, however, continued the tenancy on regular payment of rent, becoming thereby, it is said, the sole tenant. The rents were paid so up to Chaitra, 2013 S. Y. The rent for Baisakh, 2013 S. Y. , tendered to the then receiver, it was refused. That only led Hariram to remit by money-order on July 10, 1956 the rents for Baisakh and Jesth, 2013 S. Y. The remittance met the same faterefusal again. Thereupon the rents refused and the rents falling due subsequently were deposited with the Rent Controller.

(3.) WHAT goes in the preceding paragraph is merely a paraphrase of the averments in the first two paragraphs of the plaint and calls for a digression. If rent was paid up to Chaitra, 2013 S. Y. , how is it that the rent for Baishbh, 2013 S. Y. , was tendered over again? Was the rent for Baisakh, 2014 S. Y. , then tendered2013 S. Y. , in the second paragraph of the plaint having been a slip for 2014 S. Y. ? No; to read the averment so will be to misread it and to betray a misconception, submits Mr. Dutt, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, who amplifies the averment: rant was paid up to Chaitra of 2013 S. Y. to mean that it was paid up to Chaitra of 2012-13 S. Y.