( 1 ) THIS difficult case has been well argued and our only regret is that, however much we wished the contrary, this litigation would not end here but must go back to the trial court, though on a short point, for its final disposal. Complex, indeed, and varied were the questions which arose for our decision and the excellence of the arguments on either side added to their intricacies and enhanced our difficulties. We spent a considerable time over this case which had to be argued twice, - on a new point on the second occasion, - but we do not regret it as this space of time has borne fruit and it has not gone in vain and, eventually, we have been able to reach an agreed conclusion which accords with our sense of justice and view of the law.

( 2 ) THE suit, out of which this appeal arises, was a suit for ejectment and mesne profits. The appellant before us was the defendant in that suit. The suit was brought by the plaintiff respondent on 23-6-1955. It was decreed by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge on 10-8-1956, and, from the said decree, the defendant filed this appeal in this Court on September 11, 1956.

( 3 ) THE relevant facts lie within a short compass and they may be stated as follows:

( 4 ) PREMISES No. 33, Rowland Road, which is the premises in suit, belonged to the Maharaja of Burdwan. Under the Maharaja, there was a lessee whose interest passed by successive transfers to the Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. Under Hindusthan, the Great Indian Motor Works Ltd. held the suit premises as monthly tenant at Rs. 450/- per month according to the English calendar.

( 5 ) ON 23-7-1951, an order was made by this Court on its Original Side for the winding up of the Great Indian Motor Works Ltd, (vide Ext. F), and, in the said liquidation proceedings, an order (Ext. F2) was eventually made by the Court on 4-5-1954, for sale of the property and assets of the Company (including its tenancy right in the disputed premises) by public auction through Messrs. Mackenzie Lyall and Co.

( 6 ) THE sale was duly held on 12-6-1954, and the defendant appellant became the purchaser therein for Rs. 1,42,500/- (vide Exts. G and Fl ). The sale was confirmed by the Court on 5-7-1954 (vide Ext. Fl), and on the 24th of that month, the appellant got possession of, inter alia, the disputed premises (vide Ext. 2 (b) ). ( 7 ) IN the meantime on 6-5-1954, the plaintiff respondent had purchased the lessee's interest in the disputed premises from the Hindusthan Cooperative Insurance Society Ltd. (vide (Ext. 1) and, just a week thereafter, on 13-5-1954, he also acquired the owner's or the superior landlord's interest from the Maharaja of Burdwan (vide Ext. 1 (a) ). The plaintiff respondent thus became the owner of the disputed premises with the Great Indian Motor Works Ltd. (then in liquidation) as the tenant thereof. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff accepted rent from the said Company (in liquidation) through its joint official liquidators up to 23-7-1954 (vide Ex. C3 ).

( 8 ) WHEN, however, the appellant, as purchaser at the above auction sale, tendered rent from 24-7-1954, the date of his taking possession of the disputed premises to 31-7-1954, and also subsequent rent up to October 1954, the plaintiff refused to accept the same (vide Exs. 2 (b), 2 (e) and 7) and, thereafter, the rent from 24-7-1954 to October 1954 was deposited by the appellant with the Rent Controller, Calcutta, on 1-12-1954 (vide Ex. 8 ).

( 9 ) IN the meantime, there appears to have been an interview between the parties and a letter (Ex. 2) was written by the defendant to the plaintiff on or about 10-9-1954. To that letter some further reference will be necessary in the course of this judgment.

( 10 ) ON 11-5-1955, the plaintiff, through his Solicitor Sri Protap Chandra Chunder, sent a notice to quit (Ex. 4) to the defendant, asking him to vacate the suit premises and deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the same on the expiry of the said