KISHANLAL SINGOL AND ANR. Vs. HARI KISSON LOHIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment from a house belonging to the plaintiff. It appears that the plaintiff rented the house in May, 1947 at a rent of Rs. 60/ - in addition to 10 per cent by way of taxes payable monthly by the defendants to the plaintiff, as rent. The defendants thus continued to pay the rent at Rs. 66/ - per month for about a year and a half, but thereafter they defaulted.

(2.) THE Courts below have concurrently held that defendants were defaulters and could not be protected from ejectment under Section 4, Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. They have accordingly decreed the plaintiff's suit. In fact this was the only point urged before the Court of appeal below. A tenant becomes a defaulter within die meaning of Section 4 of the Act if he fails to pay the rent due by him, of the louse in his occupation within the time fixed in the contract with his landlord.

(3.) IT is then contended that the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act has no application to this case and the defendants were not liable to be evicted, The protection of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act was claimed by the defendants them* selves on the ground that they were not defaulters within the meaning of the Act and therefore they; could not be evicted. If the Act gave no protection to the defendants then the claim of the plaintiff should prevail.