On the other hand, one of the companytentions put forward on behalf of the appellants is that there was number payment of rent within the meaning of that expression as used in the Act, since the rent was number paid as and when it fell due.
It appears that at the inception of the tenancy, the respondents had paid one months rent in advance, and it had been agreed between them and the appellants that the advance rent would be adjusted whenever there was default in payment of rent for full one month.
It was pointed out that the rent for the month of March became due in April and the rent for April became due in May, but numberstep was taken by the respondents to pay the arrears until the 28th June, 1947.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Appeal from a judgment and decree of the Patna High Court dated 25th March, 1949, in A.S. 2280 of 1948 reversing an appellate decree of the Subordinate Judge in Suit No.
Notwithstanding this deposit, the House Controller passed an order on the both November, directing the eviction of the respondents by 10th May, 1948, and holding that they had made themselves liable to eviction by reason of number payment of rent.
62 of 1948.
The main ground on which the respondents have attacked the order of eviction passed by the House Controller is that in fact there was numbernon payment of rent, and, since numbereviction can be ordered under the Bihar Act unless number payment is established, the House Controller had numberjurisdiction to order eviction.
The appellants were thereafter granted leave to appeal by the High Court, and they have accordingly preferred this appeal.
The suit was dismissed by the Munsif and his decree was upheld on appeal, but the High Court decreed the suit holding that the order of the Rent Controller was without jurisdiction.
As the appellants did number accept the cheques, on 4th August, 1947, the re spondents remitted the amount subsequently by postal money order.
Baldev Sahay T. K. Prasad, with him for the appel lant.
On 12th August, 1947, the appellants, maintaining that there was number payment of rent and hence the respond ents were liable to be evicted, under section 1 1 1 a of the Bihar Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1947 Bihar Act III of 1947 , applied to the House Control ler for the eviction of the respondents from the premises.
The order of the House Controller was upheld by the Commissioner on appeal on the 27th April, 1948, and thereupon the respondents filed the present suit in the Patna Munsifs Court for a declaration that the order of the ContrOller dated the 10th November, 1947, was illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction.
The facts of the case are briefly these.
C. Chatterjee H.J. Umrigar, withhim for the respond ent.
The rent for the months of March, April and May, 1942, having fallen into arrears, they remitted it along with the rent for June, on 28th June, 1947, by means of two cheques.
The respondents have been in occupation as a monthly tenant of several blocks of premises belonging to the appellants at a monthly rental of Rs.
The judgment of the Court was deliv ered by FAZL ALL J. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna reversing the appellate decree of a Subordinate Judge in a suit insti tuted by the respondents.
February 2.
