AHINDRA NATH CHATTERJEE Vs. LTCOLEKTWISS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs, who carry on business under the name and style of J.B. Arnold & Co., instituted this suit on the 3 August last for a declaration that the defendant is not entitled to continue in possession of the eastern portion of the top flat of No. 1, Mission Row, and for a decree for vacant possession of the premises. They also claim a sum of Rs. 958-1-0 for arrears of rent from the 5 May 1920 to 8 July 1920, and Rs. 96-8-0 for the occupier's share of taxes and Rs. 480 for use and occupation from the 8 July 1920 to the date of the institution of the suit at the rate of Rs. 450, per month.

(2.) The plaintiffs in paragraph 2 of their plaint plead that, in or about the month of February 1920, it was agreed between them and one A.R. Mellis, acting on behalf of and as the agent of the defendant, that the plaintiffs should sub-let to the defendants the eastern portion of the top flat north of No. 1, Mission Row, (which the plaintiffs held under a five years lease from the 7 January 1920), from the 15 March 1920 for the remaining terms of their lease at a monthly rental of Rs. 450, plus two-thirds share of the occupier's taxes to be paid in advance on the 1 of each month and that it was also agreed that the defendant, as conditions precedent to the granting of the lease, would make a deposit with the plaintiffs in cash of an amount equivalent to three months rent and also furnish a satisfactory Bank reference.

(3.) They plead in paragraph 3 that these terms were confirmed by the defendant on his arrival in Calcutta and that a draft lease was drawn up, approved and engrossed and was ready for execution by the 8 June 1920. They state in paragraph 5 that on the 17 June 1920 the defendant-sent a cheque for Rs. 735 for rent from the 15 March 1920 to the 5th May at Rs. 450 per month and contended that the rent agreed upon was not a fair charge under the Calcutta Rent Act which came into force on the 5 May 1920 and intimated his desire to have the fair rent assessed by the Rent Controller, and (p. 6) that he on the 30th June 1920 intimated through his Attorneys that the three mouths rent would be paid and Banker's reference furnished at the time the plaintiffs executed and registered the lease, that (p. 7) on the 6 July 1920 they gave notice cancelling the tenancy. The defendant by this written statement admitted paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the plaint except that he did not admit that the making of the deposit or the furnishing of the Bank reference were conditions precedent to the granting of the lease or that it was ready for execution on the 8 June 1920, and he states that the necessary Bank reference was furnished by the Mercantile Bank and that three months rent in advance were deposited with the Rent Controller. In paragraph 7 he states, as the fact is, that the Rent Controller fixed the standard rent of the premises at Rs. 200 a month. His certificate is dated the 15 December 1920, but I understand that the standard rent was fixed some time in September. By the draft lease (Exhibit D) the plaintiff demised to the defendant the premises for a term of four years and nine months and three weeks from the 15 March 1926 at Rs. 450 a month plus two-thirds of the occupier's share of taxes payable by equal monthly payments in advance on the first day of each month and the defendant covenanted (1) to pay unto the lessors deposit of three months rent to be permanently held by the lessors and adjusted against the last three months rent in case of the term being determined in the normal way or to be refunded in case of earlier determination; (2) to pay the monthly rent reserved on the day and in manner aforesaid without any deductions or abatement and to pay rates and taxes.