RANJIT CHANDRA CHOWDHURY Vs. MOHITOSH MUKHERJEE
LAWS(CAL)-1963-8-7
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on August 14,1963

RANJIT CHANDRA CHOWDHURY Appellant
VERSUS
MOHITOSH MUKHERJEE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

JATRA MOHAN NANDI V. PITAMBAR MISTRI [REFERRED TO]
MONOMOHAN MAITRA V. GOBINDA DAS CHOWDHURY [REFERRED TO]
USHARANI DEBI V. CHARUSILLA DASI [REFERRED TO]
DWARKIN AND SONS V. HAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. VERNAZZA [REFERRED TO]
TIKA SAO V. HARILAL [REFERRED TO]
PULIN BEHARI SHAW V. LILA DEY [REFERRED TO]
GARIKAPATI VEERAYA VS. N SUBBIAH CHOUDHRY [REFERRED TO]
ANANT COPAL SHEOREY VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
SYED ABRARUL HASSAN HABIB HIDAYATULLAH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PANCHANAN GHOSE VS. HARIDAS BANERJEE [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS appeal by a tenant, the sole defendant in an action in ejectment, from an appellate judgment and decree of reversal has been opened on three points : First: the judgment under appeal is not a proper judgment of reversal. Second: payment by the appellant and acceptance by the respondent (landlord) of rent from October, 1955 to January, 1956 constitutes waiver of the notice dated August 11, 1955, to quit, no less of the technical default for 8 months from September 1954 to April 1955, affording no foundation for the suit instituted on March 1, 1956, on the foot of the second notice dated February 9, 1956, to quit, and resting on the same technical default for 8 months. Third: though this litigation is governed by the West Bengal Premises Rent control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 17 of 1950, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of section 24 of the Premises tenancy Act, 12 of 1956, providing that acceptance of the rent in default, when no proceeding pends in court, shall operate as waiver of such default. Section 24 ibid laying down a rule of evidence is not prospective, but retrospective.
(2.)MR. Sen Gupta, the learned advocate for the appellant, addresses me on no other point.
(3.)FOR a proper apprehension of the first point, it is necessary to recall in brief certain facts. The tenancy started in 1944 or thereabouts on a rent of rs. 130/- a month. In or about April, 1949, the respondent prayed the appropriate forum for standardization of rent at Rs. 261/- odd a month. In September, following, the rent was standardized but at Rs. 105/ - odd a month, some rs. 25 - less than the orriginal rent. The landlord, the respondent before me, appealed, On or about February 20, 1951, the rent was standardized by the appellate forum at Rs. 120/- odd, still some Rs. 10/- less than the original rent. During the continuance of the proceedings for standardization, deposits were made of the rent with the rent controler. After this "fight" for standardization was over, say, after February 1951, the landlord and the tenant verbally agreed that the landlord's sarkar would call on the tenant and collect rent and that whenever the sarkar would call would be the due date of payment, as mr. Sen Gupta puts it in his opening. The averment in the fifth paragraph of the written statement puts this part of the agreement: ". . . . . . . . on the definite understanding that he would never raise any question or plea of default in payment of rent technically due to laches of his collecting sarkar in collections. "


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.