(1.) THIS is the defendant's appeal, arising out of a suit for ejectment. The suit was brought in respect of two rooms Nos. 20 and 31 of Stephen House, Calcutta, which, according to the plaintiff, the Dalhousie Properties Limited, were held and occupied by the defendant Ballabhdas Agarwal Private Ltd. as a monthly tenant under it, according to the English calendar, at a rent of Rs. 300/- per month, but, which tenancy was duly determined by an appropriate notice to quit terminating the same with the expiry of December, 1957. The plaintiff further alleged in the plaint, which was filed on January 22, 1958, that the defendant was a defaulter in the payment of rent since September, 1957, and, as such, was disentitled to the protection of the relevant Rent Control Law, namely, the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
(2.) THE defense, inter alia, was that the defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of three rooms Nos. 20, 21 and 23 of the aforesaid Stephen House, Calcutta, at a rental of Rs. 400/ -. per month, and as such, the notice to quit was invalid and insufficient, and the present suit was not maintainable. The defense, further, was that the defendant was not a defaulter, as it had been duly depositing the rents with the Rent Controller on the plaintiff's refusal to accept the same. The learned trial Judge overruled the defense and decreed the plaintiff's suit. Hence this appeal by the defendant.
(3.) IN support of the appeal, Mr. Das Gupta contended, in the first instance, that the learned trial Judge was in error in holding that the defendant was a tenant in respect of the rooms in suit at Rs. 300/- per month and in affirming the validity of the notice to quit upon that finding. It is clear, however, on the materials before us, that the above finding of the learned trial Judge as to the defendant's tenancy was correct. Those materials make it abundantly clear that the defendant held two tenancies under the plaintiff, one in respect of the disputed rooms Nos. 20 and 21 and the other in respect of the other room No. 23, at the respective rentals of rs. 300/- per month and Rs. 100/- per month, and, although some of the rent receipts (Vide e. g. , Ex. A) which were granted by the landlord, were consolidated ones, mentioning all the three rooms and the total or added up rental of Rs. 400/-per month, the corresponding bills (Vide Exs. 1 series), which were issued to and accepted by the tenant defendant, were separate for the above two tenancies. In these circumstances, the defense of one tenancy for the above three rooms at a rental of Rs. 400/- per month, was rightly rejected by the learned trial Judge.;