V V KANEMAR VENKAPAIYA Vs. NAZERALLY TYABALLY SINGAPOREVALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Act XIV of 1920, Section 10 A was directed to be inserted after Section 10 of the Bombay Rent (War Restrictions) Act No. II of 1918. On December 31, 1921, the defendant in Suit No. 2676 of 1921 was evicted by the plaintiff under a decree passed on September 9, 1921, on the ground that the plaintiff, his landlord, required the premises reasonably and bona fide for his own use and occupation. The defendant alleging that the plaintiff had not occupied the premises within the period of six months horn December 31, 1921, moved the Court under Section 10 A of the Rent Act for an order that the plaintiff should be made to re-instate him in the occupation of the premises described in the plaint, on the original terms and conditions of his lease and to pay him compensation for the loss suffered during the period he was kept out of possession of the said premises.

(2.) The defendant filed his notice of motion in the office of the Prothonotary on August 25, 1922, giving notice that the Court would be moved on Thursday, August 31, for an order that the defendant might be re-instated. The notice of motion bears an endorsement that it had been served on the plaintiff's attorneys on August 25.

(3.) On August 30, the defendant's "attorneys wrote to the plaintiff's attorneys to note that they had not received the plaintiff's affidavit in reply to the notice of motion. The plaintiff's attorneys answered, on August 30, 1922, as follows: Please note that neither our client nor our client's Munim is in Bombay to give us instructions for showing cause against the notice of motion We shall, therefore apply for an adjourntment of the hearing of the motion for a month. We beg to send you herewith a copy of our client's clerk's affidavit in support of oar application for adjournment.