REKHAB CHAND DOOGAR Vs. JRD CRUZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit to eject the defendant from certain rooms in the plaintiff's house and premises No. 39, Lower Circular Road, and also for damages.

(2.) The defendant was a monthly tenant under the plaintiff, the rent alleged in the plaint as payable being Rs. 90 a month. On the 30 November 1920 the plaintiff through his Attorney gage the defendant one month's notice to quit, that is to say, on the 31 December 1920. The defendant did not quit the premises and the plaintiff has/there-fore, brought this suit.

(3.) This is one of four suits all standing on the same footing, in which the relations between the parties were the same, but the other three have failed because the parties have unsuccessfully pleaded the Rent Act, as they had not complied with the provisions with which they had to comply before they were entitled to the benefit of the Act In this case also the defendant has pleaded to be entitled to relief by reason of the Calcutta Rent Act, and the following issues were settled: 1. Does the plaintiff bona fide require the premises for his own occupation P 2. Has the defendant paid the rent due by him to the fullest extent allowable by the Calcutta Rent Act by the 15 day of the month next following that for which the rent was payable in accordance with the provision of Section 11, Sub-section (5) ? 3. Has the plaintiff refused to accept the rent offered, and has the defendant duly de-pouted it, with the Rent Controller under Section 11, Sub-section (4) ?