KABIRAJ SRINARAYAN SARMA Vs. BAIJNATH BHARTIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against a judgment and order dated 30th April, 1960, of the 5th Bench of the City Civil Court by which a decree of ejectment was passed against the defendant.

(2.) The short facts of the case are as follows: The defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of one shop room on the ground floor of premises No. 244, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta. The tenancy was according to the English calendar month. By an order the 10th August, 1957 the Third Judge of the Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta fixed the standard rent of the premises in suit at Rs. 39/9/-per month from July, 1949 upto March, 1952 and at Rs. 39/11/- (i. e. Rs. 39. 69 nP) with effect from the ,1st April 1952. According to the plaintiff, the defendant continued to pay rent for the months of July, August, September and October, 1957 at the rate of Rs. 38.50 nP. though before the dates of deposits of these rents the rent had been standardised at a higher rate. It was only on the 21st December, 1957 that the defendant paid Rs. 67.25 nP which, according to the defendant, included rent at the rate of Rs. 39. 69 nP. for the month of November, 1957 as well as an excess amount so calculated as to wipe out the earlier arrears. The plaintiff claims that the defendant failed to pay or deposit the standard rate of rent i. e. Rupees 39.69 nP for more than four months in the same calendar year and is not, therefore, entitled to the benefits of protection from eviction under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. A notice of ejectment dated 24th March, 1958 was served on the defendant asking the defendant to vacate the premises on the expiry of the last date of April, 1958. The defendant having failed to vacate the premises in terms of the said notice, the plaintiff filed the present ejectment suit.

(3.) The main defence of the defendant as it appears from the written statement is as follows: The plaintiff was entitled to the increased amount only after the 10th August, 1957. Calculating from and after that date, rents at higher rate were liable to be deposited only for September and October. There was, therefore, default only in respect of those two months. The defendant admits that in respect of November also there was technically a short deposit. Thereafter the rents have been paid at proper rates.