Chakravartti, J. - (1.) An interesting and in a sense fundamental question under the Rent Control Act of 1950 is involved in this appeal. It is also a question of first" impression in one of its aspects.
(2.) The facts are not in dispute. The Appellants are or, perhaps it would be more correct to say, were tenants under the Respondent in respect of a large shoproom on the ground floor of premises Nos. 11A and 11B, Esplanade Row, East. They paid a rent of Rs. 695 1 2 as. per month. On the 11th April, 1953, the Respondent issued a notice to them to quit the premises on the expiry of the month and on the 2nd May, 1953, he brought a suit for their ejectment on the Original Side of this Court. In order to exclude the Appellants from the benefit of the Rent Control Act, he pleaded that they had made default in the due payment of two months' rent on three occasions within a period of eighteen months, though they had subsequently paid up that rent. The rent for September, 1952, had been paid on the 17th October following, that for October on the 19th November, that for November on the 17th December, that for December on the 19th January, 1953, that for January, 1953, on the 17th February following and that for February on the 17th March, 1953.
(3.) The Respondent's further case was that the Appellants had not at all paid the rent for March and April, 1953, but that case was abandoned at the trial. In their written statement the Appellants took a plea of an understanding between the parties that the rent would be paid when an agent or servant of the Respondent would call for it, but that case was also abandoned.;