- (1.) THE principal point in this appeal is whether the learned chief Judge' City Civil court, Calcutta has rightly decreed that the plaintiff respondent is entitled to recover the possession of the suit premises let out to the defendant appellant under clause (g) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act, 1956.
(2.) IT is the case of the both parties that the appellant, Miss Mohini Mirchandani, was in the service or employment of the plaintiff-respondent, K. L. M. Royal Dutch airlines, until she had resigned - with effect from 1st April, 1973, It is also the common case that by reason of her being in the service or employment under the plaintiff, the suit premises was. Let out to the defendant for use as her residence. The said suit premises consisted of two living rooms kitchen and bath and a covered verandah in the third floor of 7, Jawaharlal Nehru Road and for a part of a residential flat taken on tenancy by the plaintiff company from the life Insurance Corporation of India at a monthly rental of Rs. 450/- per month. So long as the defendant was in service, the plaintiff used to deduct a sum of Rs. 235/ -. per month as rent from the monthly emoluments payable to her. After she ceased to be in service under the plaintiff, she was paid her provident fund, a sum of Rs. 12450/-as gratuity. In view of her "long and faithful service" and special circumstances the plaintiff company had decided to offer the defendant another sum of Rs. 25575/- Even after she ceased to be in service of the plaintiff, she did not surrender possession and the General Manager of the plaintiff company by his letter dated 18th april, 1973 had advised the defendant that tier portion of rent should be paid to plaintiff's Calcutta office who would issue a receipt for the payment. The plaintiff has also exhibited two receipts granted, by the plaintiff company to the defendant on account of rent paid for June, 1973 and december, 1975 indicating that up to december, 1975, the plaintiff company had accepted rent from the defendant.
(3.) THE defendant in her application dated 9th March, 1976 filed before the Rent Controller, Calcutta had, inter-alia, alleged that although she had tendered to the plaintiff rants for January, 1976 the latter had refused. She also claimed that rent for February, 1976 although tendered, had been refused. She prayed that she may be given permission to deposit rent for February, 1976. The defendant appellant along with her application for additional evidence filed in this Court has filed copies of a number of rent control challans to establish that she had continued to deposit regularly and within the prescribed time rent in the office of the Rent Controller.;