GOPAL CHANDRA NARAYAN CHOUDHURY Vs. MURARI MOHAN DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in these two appeals was a tenant in respect of four rooms in 93/1/h, Baithakkhana Road, Calcutta, three of then being on the ground floor and one on the third floor under the respondents. The respondents' case is that these four rooms were covered by two separate tenanciesone at a monthly rent of Rs. 24-8 for the three rooms on the ground floor and another tenancy at the rate of Rs. 9-13 per month for the room on the third floor. Accordingly they brought two ejectment suits in respect of the two tenancies on the allegations that each of these tenancies has been determined by a notice to quit and further that the defendant was not entitled to the special protection against ejectment in view of his defaults in payment of rent since the month of December, 1949. In the plaint as originally drafted, there was also an averment that the defendant's tenancies had been ipso facto determined by operation of law. Later the plaintiffs prayed for the deletion of paragraph 4 of the plaint which contained this averment and the prayer was allowed. The averment in paragraph 2 of the plaint that the defendant was in arrears of rent legally payable by him to the plaintiffs since the month of December, 1949, however, remained unaltered. The defendant's contention in both these suits was firstly that the four rooms were covered by one single tenancy at a rental of Rs. 15-5-3, an additional sum of Rs 3 being paid by the defendant to the plaintiffs for electric charges and that accordingly the notice to quit was invalid and ineffective in law. In paragraph 11 of the written statement it was further pleaded that there was actually no default, as thee defendant had been depositing rents at the contractual rates. An additional plea taken in paragraph 11 of the written statement was that even if it be held that the deposits made by the defendant were short and insufficient, then action should be taken under section 14 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act of 1950 and defendant should be given an opportunity of paying up the arrears as provided therein and the suit should be dismissed upon such payment being made.

(2.) THE trial court rejected the defendant's contention and found that the plaintiffs' case that there were two tenancies had been proved; it found also that the notices were duly served and that even if pre-1950 Act defaults be ignored, he was not entitled to any protection against eviction under the provisions of section 14 of the 1950 Act in view of the proviso to subsection (3) thereof, its finding on fact being that on three occasions each of two months the defendant had defaulted in payment of rents. Accordingly it decreed both the suits.

(3.) ON appeal the learned judges of the Small Causes Court also found that there were two separate tenancies in respect of the four rooms as found by the learned trial judge. They further held that the defendant was a defaulter for six consecutive months from March. 1950 to August, 1950 and thus made defaults on three occasions of two months each within a period of 18 months prior to the institution of the suit and that he was, therefore, not entitled to any protection against eviction in view of the proviso to subsection (3) of section 14 of the Rent Act of 1950. Accordingly they dismissed the appeals.