NAGENDRANATH KARMAKAR Vs. JOTISH CHANDRA MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is on behalf of the defendants in a suit for ejectment and for recovery of mesne profits and compensation for damages done to the demised ffremises.

(2.) THE inception of the lease dates back to the year 1942 when the defendant No. 1 wrote a letter to the plaintiff agreeing to hold the demised premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 26/ -. The letter recited that the tenancy would be determined by one month's notice. Subsequently thereto, the defendants took a lease of an additional room and agreed to pay additional rent. The terms of the lease continued as before. The plaintiff served a notice to quit on defendants Nos. 1 and 2 requiring them to vacate the premises by the end of September, 1946. The notice recites that the defendant No.1 is the tenant of the premises, that the defendant No. 2 had paid certain sums towards the rent of the premises and that as a matter of abundant caution, the notice to quit was also being served on the defendant No. 2. As the defendants did not vacate, the present suit was instituted. It may be noted that the permission of the Rent Controller to the institution of the. suit was not taken.

(3.) MR . Bose appearing for the defendants appellants has raised as many as five contentions in support of the appeal.