MANICKCHAND DURGAPROSAD AND BROS Vs. BALUKIDAS BAHETI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a landlord's appeal agaist a judgment and decree dated 30th May, 1959, of the Judge, Third Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta by which the plaintiffs' suit for eviction of the tenant-defendant on the ground of default in payment of rent was dismissed.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows: The defendant was a monthly tenant under the plaintiffs in respect of one room namely room No. 52 on the fourth floor of premises No. 5, Jadunath Mullick Road, Calcutta, at a monthly rental of Rs. 33/-. The tenancy was according to the Hindi Sambat Calendar month and it ran from Badi 1 to Sudi 15 of each such month. The plaintiffs complained that the defendant was a habitual defaulter and in any event had made default in payment of rent for four months within a period of twelve months since the month of "Jeth, S. Y. 2014". The plaintiffs determined the tenancy of the defendant by a notice of ejectment dated 5th May, 1958, addressed by their Solicitor Mr. B.M. Bagaria. By that notice the defendant was asked to quit, vacate and deliver up peaceful possession of the room "with the expiry of the next month" i.e., Ashar Sudi 15, S. Y. 2015. Thereafter when the defendant failed and neglected to deliver up peaceful possession of the room the plaintiffs filed the suit.

(3.) The defendant in his written statement contends that there was in fact no default. He says that he paid rent to the plaintiffs directly upto the month of Chaitra, 2012-13 S. Y., i.e., upto Chaitra Sudi 15, 2013 S. Y. Subsequent to that payment there was, he complains, some dispute between himself and the plaintiffs who refused to accept rents direct from the defendant by presentation of bills. The defendant then remitted the rent for the month of Baisakh, 2013 S. Y. by money order and the same was accepted by the plaintiffs. The defendant then remitted rent for the month of Jaistha, 2013 S. Y. on 28th June, 1956 for which, however, he did not receive the postal receipt. Nor did the money come back to him. As the defendant was not sure whether the money had reached the plaintiffs he, in order to protect his interest under law, deposited rent for the months of Jaistha and Ashar, 2013 S. Y. In the office of the Rent Controller, Calcutta, on 1st September, 1958 and continued depositing rents month by month. In the meantime, the defendant came to know after a correspondence with the postal authorities that the remittance made by the defendant on 28th June, 1956, had been delivered to the plaintiffs on 30th June, 1956. Therefore, there was really a case of double payment of rent for the month of Jaistha, 2013 S. Y, After the filing of the suit the defendant deposited the rent for the month of Shravan, 2015 S. Y. In Court within time after service of summons upon him. The defendant claims that by way of adjustment all deposits made by him in the office of the Rent Controller are to be treated as deposits for the months next to the months for which the deposits are purported to have been made. Therefore, though the defendant deposited rents in the office of the Rent Controller upto the month of Ashar, 2015 S. Y. In fact those deposits should be treated as deposits upto the month of Shravan, 2015 S. Y. On these facts the defendant claims that he cannot be treated as a defaulter.