P.N. Mookerjee, J. - (1.) This appeal is by the Plaintiff and it arises out of a suit for ejectment which was decreed by the trial court after striking out the defence to the Plaintiff's claim for ejectment under Section 14(4) of the Rent Control Act of 1950, but which decision has been set aside on appeal and the case remanded for re-hearing of the merits. The learned Subordinate Judge who heard the tenants' appeal from the trial court's decree for ejectment has held that the tenants' defence to the Plaintiff's claim for ejectment was improperly rejected by the trial court under Section 14(4) of the Rent Control Act of 1950 which, according to the learned Subordinate Judge, had no application to the present case. In this view of the matter, the decree for ejectment, passed by the trial court, has been set aside and the suit has been remanded to the original court for fresh hearing according to law after giving an opportunity to the Defendants to contest the Plaintiff's claim. From this appellate decision the present second appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiff.
(2.) The relevant facts are not in dispute and they may be shortly stated as follows: On December 4, 1951, the present suit for ejectment was filed by the Plaintiff for evicting the Defendants from premises No. 49, Motijhil Avenue, Dum Dum. In the suit, ejectment was claimed on the ground of default in the payment of rent and also on other grounds, for example, bona fide requirement for the Plaintiff's own use and occupation, etc., under the Rent Control Act, 1950. The suit was contested by the Defendants who filed their written statement on March 24, 1952. On March 31, 1952, the Plaintiff applied for an appropriate order under Section 14(4) of the Rent Control Act, 1950, alleging that the Defendants had been making defaults in the payment of rents from October, 1951. To this there was a rejoinder by the tenant-Defendant No. 1, on April 10, 1952, that only the rent for March, 1952, was due. On June 12, 1952, the court recorded the following order: "Both parties ready. Petition under Section 14(4) is taken up for hearing. Heard pleaders of both sides who agree that previous rents having been deposited the rents from June, 1952 at the rate of Rs. 100 per month are to be deposited in this Court. ORDERed That the defendant do deposit future rents in this Court month by month at the rate of Rs. 100 per month from June, 1952 by the 15th of each of the next following month. In default, the defence against ejectment shall be struck off."
(3.) The rent for June, 1952, was duly paid, but there were defaults in the payment of subsequent rents and, on November 14, 1952, the defence to the Plaintiff's claim for ejectment was struck off. Thereafter, the suit came up for hearing on December 9, 1952. It was heard ex parte and an ex parte decree for ejectment was passed by the trial court. The Defendant No. 1 appealed from this decree and, in the lower appellate court, the real point that was taken on his behalf was that, having regard to the nature of the plaint, the present suit was clearly a composite suit for ejectment on various grounds, including the ground of default, and to such a suit Section 14(4) of the Rent Control Act of 1950 can have no application. This contention was accepted by the lower appellate court and the necessary consequence was that the order of the trial court, striking off the defence, to the Plaintiff's claim for ejectment under the provisions of that section, was held to he without jurisdiction and, accordingly, the case was remanded to the trial court for fresh hearing, as stated above.;