PURUSOTTAM LAL SAROGI Vs. MTHAWI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The material facts giving rise to this rule are these: The present petitioner was a tenant under the opposite party in respect of five rooms on the first floor of No. 13, Halwasiya Eoad, Calcutta. In November 1944, the opposite party applied under Section 41, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act (15 [XV] of 1882) for a summons against the petitioner calling on him to show cause why he should not be compelled to deliver up the property asserting that the present petitioner was a defaulter within the meaning of the Calcutta Rent Control Order, 1943. The application was registered as a suit and a consent decree was passed by which possession was to be delivered by the present petitioner by 30-3-1946.

(2.) The Calcutta Rent Control Order was amended. The Court thereupon set aside the consent decree and directed the opposite party to obtain the consent of the Rent Controller to prosecute his suit. Thereafter the Rent Control Order ceased to have effect, and the Calcutta Rent Ordinance, 1946, came into force on 1-10-1946. Thereafter, on 3-12-1946, the opposite party applied to the Court to amend the application by including an averment "that the defendant has sublet a portion of the demised premises without the consent of the plaintiff."

(3.) The amendment was allowed. The present petitioner denied that he had sublet the premises as alleged. Evidence was taken on this point; and the Small Cause Court Judge came to the conclusion that the present petitioner had sublet two of the five rooms in June or July 1945.