NATIONAL JEWELLER WORKS Vs. DIANA PRINTING WORKS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal by the defendants arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs for recovery of arrears of rent from September. 1947, to October, 1949 in respect of certain premises in Calcutta. There is no dispute about the material facts which are as follows. The owner of the premises let it out to P. C. Sarkar as a monthly tenant who in his turn let it out to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs again let it out to the defendants at a monthly rent. After service on P. C. Sarkar of a notice to quit, the owner brought an ejectment suit against him and got a decree on 27. 8. 47 but it was only on 28 10. 49 that he could get khas possession of the premises by evicting the tenant and all the subtenants.

(2.) THE only point in controversy between the parties in the present suit is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover arrears of rent from the defendants for the period subsequent to the ejectment decree up to the date when defendants actually vacated the premises. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiffs are so entitled and decreed the suit accordingly inasmuch as in their view the relationship of landlord and tenant during the period in suit subsisted between the parties.

(3.) THE contention on behalf of the defendants appellants is that the above view of the lower Courts is erroneous. It is argued on their behalf that since at leas; the date of the ejectment decree obtained by the owner of the premises against the lessee (P. C. Sarkar) there was an automatic extinction of the entire series of sub-leases dependent upon that lease with the necessary result that with effect from that date the relationship of landlord and tenant as between the plaintiffs and defendants also ceased to exist thereby disentitling the former from claiming any rent from the latter after that date. It is argued that after the ejectment decree the plaintiffs had no estate and there could, therefore, be no privity of estate or contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants from that date and the Courts below were wrong in holding to the contrary. That being the position, it is argued, the necessary consequence is that the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any rent from the defendants for the period in suit.