MARIA KESHI DROZARIO Vs. HASSAN MOVIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave calls in question a decree for ejectment of the appellant-tenant, passed by the Subordinate Judge and maintained, in revision, by a learned Single Judge of the High Court Division. Respondent-landlord filed the suit for ejectment, S.C.C. Suit No.12 of 1984, Dhaka, only on the ground of default on the part of the tenant in paying rent for the months of January and February 1984. Appellant contended that she did not make any default but deposited the rent with the Rent Controller under the provisions of s.18 (5) and s.19 (1) of the Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 1963, briefly the Ordinance. Both the Courts below held that the rent was to be paid in terms of the Lease-Agreement of the parties, by the 5th of each current month and not under the provision of s. 18(5) of the Ordinance, by fifteenth day of the next month and as such the deposit of the rent under s. 18(5) would not protect the tenant from ejectment for default.

(2.) Respondent landlord created a monthly tenancy in favour of the appellant by letting a shop room in the Balaka Building tinder an Agreement of Lease dated 1 September 1978 for the period ending by 31 December 1983 at a rent of Tk.600/- per month, which was later on, raised to Tk.750/- by mutual agreement. About three weeks before the expiration of this period, respondent addressed a letter dated 7 December 1983 to the tenant informing her that after the expiry of the period of the lease if she was willing to continue as a tenant, she would be required to pay enhanced rent of Tk. 4000/- per month and for that purpose to renew the lease on fresh terms and conditions. The appellant by a letter dated 21 December 1983 informed the respondent that, when he (landlord) had agreed to accept enhancement of rent by 10% on the existing rates from all other tenants in the same Balaka Building, she was ready to pay the enhanced rent by 10%; no agreed rent was yet fixed but the appellant continued as a tenant. The respondent treated the appellant as a tenant holding over and found that the tenant did pay rent by the 5th of each current month in terms of the previous Agreement; he then served a notice dated 23 February 1984 under section 106, T.P.Act and terminated the tenancy with effect from 31 March 1984 on the ground that the rent of February and January was not paid by the 5th of the month concerned. He then filed the suit for ejectment of the appellant.

(3.) In a written objection the appellant contended that when the Lease Agreement expired and the respondent proposed renewal of the tenancy on fresh terms and conditions including enhanced rent, the old Agreement would not apply and consequently the date of payment of rent would be governed by s.18 (5) of the Ordinance which provides that in the absence of any contract as to when rent is to be paid, the rent for every month is to be paid by the 15th of the month next following the month for which rent is due; accordingly she offered the rent of January which was refused by the respondent whereupon she sent it by postal Money Order dated 8 February 1984 and when it was returned as "refused" on 29 February 1984, she again sent the rent of January, February and March together by postal Money Order dated 5 March 1984. But without waiting for the acceptance of the Money Order by the landlord, the appellant filed House Rent Case No.54 of 1984 on 13 March 1984 and deposited the rent of January and February to the Kent Controller on 14 March 1984 and since then she has been continuously and regularly depositing the rent to the Rent Controller and as such she was not a defaulter. As already stated above, the trial Court as well as the revisional Court held the appellant 'defaulter' on the basis that the rent was to be, paid by the 5th of each current month in terms of the Agreement.