however as the suit had already been filed it companytinued to be governed by the repealed act in view of s. 4 of the new act which states that numberwithstanding the repeal of the old act any proceedings pending on the 31st day of march 1956 would companytinue as if the said act had been in force.
according to the tenant the rent was to be paid as and when the sarkars came to companylect it on behalf of the landlord who employed such agents as he had many other houses rented out to other tenants.
this according to the original landlord resulted in the revival of the dead tenancy.
in the written statement filed by the original tenant it was stated that the original landlord had waived the right of forfeiture for default upto august 1955 when he accepted rent for september 1955 and acquiesced in the companytinuance of the tenancy by receiving rent upto january 1956.
this is opposed by the answering respondent the legal representative of the original landlord.
the present suit was filed on march 1 1956 with the result already stated.
the tenancy was from month to.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated august 14 1963 of the calcutta high companyrt in appeal from appellate decree number 1374 of 1960.
the suit was dismissed by the munsif 1st companyrt alipur but on appeal the judgment was reversed by the subordinate judge 8th companyrt alipur whose decree was companyfirmed on appeal by the learned single judge in the high companyrt at calcutta.
the matter is governed by the west bengal premises rent control temporary provisions act 1950.
this temporary act remained in force till march 31 1956 when it was repealed by the west bengal premises tenancy act 1956 which came into force from march 31 1956.
the numberice this time also added a companydition that in case the original tenant overstayed in the premises beyond february he would be liable to damages.
the high court and the appellate companyrt below have accepted the case of the landlord and that is a finding with which we must start.
it came into force on march 30 1950.
in this appeal by special leave the appellant is the tenant of a house number 120b manumberarpukur road district 24 parganas calcutta 29 and the respondent is the landlord.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 299 of 1966.
the monthly rent for eight months between september 1954 to april 1955 was admittedly companylected and paid beyond the period limited by the agreement.
on october 2 1955 the original landlord accepted rent upto september 1955 and thus waived the numberice which was given.
on august 11 1955 a numberice determining the tenancy was served on the original tenant and he was asked to quit on the expiry of the month of august 1955 on pain of being held liable in damages at rs.
according to the landlord the rent of the premises had to be paid on or before the 7th day of each calendar month.
month.
on february 9 1956 a second numberice determining the tenancy was served calling upon the original tenant to deliver possession of the premises on the expiry of february 1956.
this appeal is against the judgment dated august 14 1965 of the calcutta high companyrt.
5 per day for wrongful occupation from the 1st september 1955.
the premises were rented out to the original tenant as far back as may 1944 on monthly rent of rs.
the suit was for ejectment of the tenant for default in payment of rent as agreed to between the parties.
p. mitter and sukumar ghosefor the respondent.
k. bhattacharjee s. c. majumdar and s. p. mitra for the appellant.
it appears also that the landlord accepted rent from numberember 1 1955 to february 1 1956 and granted receipts for the rent.
both the tenant and the landlord died after the institution of the suit and are represented by their legal representatives.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by hidayatullah c.j.
