LAWS(CAL)-1954-9-16

BAIJNATH PROSAD HALUAI Vs. KADER BUX SHAIKH

Decided On September 07, 1954
Baijnath Prosad Haluai Appellant
V/S
Kader Bux Shaikh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by Defendant No. 3 and it arises out of a suit for declaration of the Plaintiff's tenancy light in the suit premises and for recovery of possession. The suit was instituted on August 23, 1948, when the Calcutta Rent Ordinance of 1946 was in force. The suit was dismissed by the trial court but, on appeal, it has been decreed. Hence this appeal by the main contesting Defendant. The relevant facts shortly may be stated as follows: The suit premises belong to Defendant No. 1 Harendra Nath Saha who is Respondent No. 2 in the present appeal. Under Harendra, the Plaintiff occupied the disputed premises as a monthly tenant according to the English calendar. On August 16, 1946, when communal riots rake out in this city, the Plaintiff left the disputed premises and rent away to his native village in Magrahat. Thereafter it appears that the Plaintiff deposited certain rents with the Rent Controller. These deposits were as follows, namely:-on January 26, 1947, of the rents from August to December; 1946; on March 15, 1947, of the rents for January and February, 1947; and, on August 12, 1947, of the rents for March and April, 1947.

(2.) It also appears that the Plaintiff made a further deposit on September 1, 1947, namely, of the rents from May to July, 1947. There is no evidence of any other deposit nor is it the Plaintiff's allegation in the plaint or his case at any stage that any further deposit of rent after the rent of July, 1947, was made by him.

(3.) On August 23, 1948, the Plaintiff instituted the present suit on the allegation that his original tenancy was subsisting and he was, accordingly, entitled to a declaration of his rights under the same and also to recovery of possession of the suit premises. The main defence of the Defendant No. 1, the landlord was that the Plaintiff's original tenancy had been duly terminated by the service of a proper notice to quit in June, 1947, and that the Plaintiff was not entitled to any relief in the present suit.