MT BITTI KUER Vs. BANARSI BABOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment. The plaintiff claimed that she was the owner of the bottle which was being occupied by the defendant as a tenant from month to month, that he was in arrears and so she took the permission of the Town Rationing Officer for his ejectment in view of the provisions of the orders promulgated under the Defence of India Rules, that the arrears had been paid prior to the suit, but the house had not been vacated and that, therefore, the suit for ejectment had to be brought. The defence was that the rent having been paid and accepted by the plaintiff prior to the institution of the suit, there was a waiver and the Town Rationing Officer's permission lapsed and could not be given effect to and that, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit, The trial Court decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court dismissed it. The plaintiff has come up in second appeal to this Court.

(2.) The only point urged on her behalf is that the learned Judge of the Court below was wrong in holding that the Town Rationing Officer's permission to sue had lapsed.

(3.) It appears that the rent for June a July, 1945 had not been paid by the defendant. The Town Rationing Officer appears to have given permission to sue on account of the default in payment of the rent for those two months. After the permission, but before the suit was brought, the defendant paid all the rent that was due from her, as is clearly admitted in para. 2 of the plaint. The question is whether this acceptance of the rent by the plaintiff-appellant prior to the suit deprived her of the right to maintain the suit for ejectment.