- (1.) This is the tenant's Rule against an order passed by the court below, under Section 14(4) of the Rent Control Act of 1950. It arises under the following circumstances: The Petitioner company was the tenant of the disputed premises from about the year 1942 under the owner Dr. Sarat Chandra Das Gupta. The contractual rent was originally Rs. 210 per month. It was subsequently raised to Rs. 429 per month inclusive of the occupier's share of municipal rates.
(2.) In 1948, Dr. Das Gupta died and his heirs, namely, the present opposite parties, who were his widow and his three sons became entitled to his rights in the disputed premises. The rents, however, used to be received by opposite party No. 1 Mrs. Amiya Prova Das Gupta presumably on behalf of all the opposite parties, and the tenant Petitioner used to send the rents to her by cheques by registered post which were duly accepted by the said lady. This went on till about the middle of the year 1952, when it is alleged, the rent for July, 1952 was sent by the Petitioner by money order on August 25, 1952, and, it not having been accepted and the money order having come back to the Petitioner on or about August 29, 1952, rents began to be deposited with the Rent Controller. The money order in question appears to have been for Rs. 334-5-6 pies which, according to the Petitioner, was the amount due on account of the 1952 July rent after deducting the amount of Rs. 94-10-6 pies which had to be paid by the Petitioner in the meantime on account of municipal rates, from the contractual rent of Rs. 429 per month.
(3.) On August 25, 1954, the present opposite parties applied for an order against the Petitioner under Section 14(4) of the Rent Control Act of 1950, alleging inter alia that rents were in arrear ever since July 1952, the total arrears up to that date, amounting to about Rs. 9,051-14 according to the said opposite parties. The prayer was, of course, the usual one for deposit of the arrears and current rents, as required or prescribed by the statute and in terms thereof. The Petitioner objected and his defence inter alia was that there were no arrears as all rents had been duly deposited with the Rent Controller.;