ultimately the suit was decreed on december 15 1959.
220 per mensem.
an appeal to the high court was unsuccessful.
in view of sub s. 2 of s. 13 of the west bengal premises rent companytrol temporary provisions act 1950 act xvii of 1950 hereinafter called the act the appellant became the tenant of the landlord after the determination of the tenancy of susil chandra banerjee.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated january 9 1962 of the calcutta high companyrt in appeal from original decree number 48 of 1961.
153 plus certain other charges.
subsequently on june 10 1957 the respondent instituted the suit for ejectment of the appellant from the premises.
the tenancy was monthly.
205 by an agreement dated june 9 1954.
subsequent ly it was reduced to rs.
the high companyrt refused to give leave to appeal to this companyrt.
his tenancy commenced from april 1 1954.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 150 of 1963.
on march 19 1957 the land lord respondent gave a numberice to the appellant asking him to deliver possession of the premises on the expiry of the last day of april 1957 on the ground that he being the statutory tenant had number paid rents to him since june 16 1955 and as such was number entitled to any protection under the west bengal premises tenancy act 1956 act xii of 1956 .
october 10 1963.
singh for the appellant.
agarwal m.k.
thereafter the appellant obtained special leave from this companyrt and filed the appeal.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by raghubar dayal j. raj kishore tewari appellant in this appeal by special leave was occupying certain premises as sub tenant of susil chandra banerjee under a registered lease dated april 10 1954.
rarnatnurthi and d.p.
the rent fixed was rs.
on june 16 1955 the landlord obtained a decree of ejectment against susil chandra banerjee.
garg s.c.
c. setalvad and b.p.
c. chatterlee r.k.
maheshwari for the respondent.
susil chandra banerjee was the tenant of govindaram bhansali from september 15 1943 at a monthly rental of rs.
his defence was however struck off due to certain default.
the suit was resisted by the appellant on various grounds.
