BANCKHANIDKI SAMANTRAI Vs. LACHMINARAIN AGARWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the tenant against whom a decree for ejectment has been passed in a suit by the respondent -plaintiff. The plaintiffs case was that the defendant was let into his house as a monthly tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 14, but that the defendant was highly irregular in the payment of rent necessitating the filing of two suits by the plaintiff, to recover arrears of rent. The defendant again fell into arrears and the plaintiff was, therefore, obliged to terminate the tenancy by the service of a notice to quit on the defendant. The defendant refused to accept the notice and hence the suit. The defendants plea was that he is protected against eviction by the provisions of the House Rent Control Order and that he was willing to pay up all the arrears of rent, He also questioned the validity of the notice to quit and denied his liability to pay damages.

(2.) THE Courts below have concurrently found that the notice served on the defendant to quit, terminating the tenancy with effect from 10th August 1943, was a valid notice and satisfied the requirements of law. They also found that the House Rent Control Order came into force on 1st November 1943, i.e., after the suit, and therefore did not apply to the facts of this case, as the suit had been filed as early as 28th August 1943.

(3.) THE next contention urged on behalf of the appellant is that the House Rent Control Act of 1947 which holds the field now applies to the case before us. It may be observed that at the tune the suit was pending in the Courts below the House Rent Control Order of 1942 was in force, but the word tenant was not defined. in that Order. The Orissa House Rent Control Act of 1947 (Orissa Act V (5) of 1947) removes this lacuna, and defines tenant as meaning