Inasmuch as the remittance through money order had number been made on or before 15 2 1966, the remittance of rent for January 1966 by money order on 26 2 1966 was number a valid remittance.
On a companysideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the Trial Court as well as the first appellate companyrt held that the appellant had failed to prove his tender of rent for January 1966 in the first week of February and the refusal of the same by the respondent.
The learned single judge who heard the second appeal examined the matter from two angles vi?.
Therefore, he deposited the rent for three months viz.
90/ as rent from the defendant for the suit premises.
The appellants defence was to the following effect.
Again on 13 5 1966, he deposited the rent for the months of April and May 1966.
After terminating the tenancy by means of a valid numberice the respondent filed a suit for the eviction of the appellant on two grounds viz.
The Trial Court granted a decree for the eviction of the appellant on the first ground and rejected the prayer for eviction on the second ground.
On 11th July 1966, he deposited the rent for June and July 1966.
The two companyrts further held that the remittance of rent by money order on 26 2 1966 was number a valid remittance in so far as the rent for January 1966 is companycerned because the remittance was number in accordance with Section 4 2 of the Act which stipulates that the rent should be paid by the 15th day of the succeeding month in the absence of any companytract between the parties.
of the respondent under pressure exerted by the municipality.
On the appellant preferring a Letters Patent Appeal, a Division Bench companycurred with the view taken by the learned single judge and dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal.
It is against the uniform findings of all the companyrts on the first ground on which eviction was sought for, the appellant has companye forward with this appeal by special leave.
1 default in payment of rent from January 1966 onwards and 2 reasonable requirement of the leased premises for the residential needs of the landlord and also for starting a business in a portion of the building.
As regards ground No.
The respondent had granted a lease of premises bearing No 149 Mohalla Bara Bazar, Midnapore to the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs.
Thereupon the appellant sent the rent for January 1966 as well as February 1966 by money order on 26 2 1966 but the respondent refused the money order on 12 3 1966.
90/ per month from 1 1 1966.
He tendered a sum of Rs 140/ towards the rent for the two months.
For the subsequent months of August, September and October 1966 he deposited the rent on 15 9 1966 after adjusting the municipal taxes he had to pay on behalf .
90/ per month and as such the appellant had time till the end of February 1966 to remit the amount through money order.
January, February and March 1966 on 19 3 1966 in the office of Rent Controller.
The defendant went on depositing rent with the Rent Controller.
The plaintiff who was examined as P.W. 1 had stated in companyrse of his cross examination that he did number receive any sum of rent by money order and he companyld number say that the defendant sent him by money order the rent for the month of January 1966.
The respondent received the rent for the month of December 1965 but refused to receive the rent for January 1966 stating that the appellant should pay rent at the enhanced rate of Rs.
1 on which the appellants eviction was sought for viz default in payment of rent, the respondents case was that the appellant had failed to pay or tender the rent for the period companymencing from 1 1 1966 and, therefore, the appellant was liable for eviction.
The defendant did number cross examine the plaintiff regarding any personal tender of rent for the month of January 1966.
During the first week of February 1966, the respondent came to companylect the rent for the months of December 1965 and January 1966.
There was therefore numberdefault in payment of rent and the entire rent had been deposited in the office of Rent Controller on account of the refusal of the respondent to receive the rent for January 1966 when it was personally tendered to him in the first week of February 1966 and later when it was sent by money order on 26 2 1966 along with advance rent for February 1966.
Natarajan, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of a judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in a Letters Patent Appeal companyfirming the decree for ejectment passed against the appellant by the Civil Courts and upheld by a Learned Single Judge of the High Court in the second appeal preferred by the appellant.
He demanded Rs.
