NAVNITLAL CHUNILAL Vs. BABURAO (NO1)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the decision of Mr. Justice Blagden dated December 17, 1943. The point raised is a short one, and is whether the acceptance of a payment after notice to quit waived the notice, as it is sometimes described, and in effect created a new tenancy.

(2.) Now, it is necessary to say something with regard to relevant dates. It appears that in February of 1943 the landlords, who are the respondents to this appeal, were minded to get possession of these premises if they could, and under the supposition that the whole of the Bombay Rent Restriction Order, 1942, was valid and effectual, they applied to the Controller, and ultimately, after having gone to the Collector, they got a certificate saying that the premises were needed for their own occupation. That certificate is dated April 19, 1943. Accordingly, on the following day, April 20, they served a notice to quit on their tenant, the appellant to this appeal. No point turns on the validity of that notice. The notice expired on June 2, and on June 7, this suit was filed, and be it noted in passing that in the prayer to the plaint the respondents ask (a) for an order for delivering up of vacant possession, and (b) that the defendant might be ordered to pay compensation for use and occupation of the premises from June 3, 1943, till vacant possession given, at Rs. 181 per month.

(3.) What subsequently happened was as follows : On July 10, 1943, a cheque was sent with a covering letter by the appellant to the respondents, and the covering letter says this : Please find herewith my cheque for Rs, 181 being the rent for the month of Jeth.