( 1 ) THE appellant Pulin Behari Shaw, was a monthly tenant under one Amulya Ranjan Dey, brother of the plaintiff respondent, in respect of a shoproom on the groundfloor of premises No. 66/4 (formerly 48) Strand Bank Road at a monthly rent of Rs. 130/3/6. The plaintiff sued the appellant for ejectment on the allegation that she had purchased the interest of her brother and served a notice of attornment and had determined the defendant's tenancy by a notice to quit dated 2-1-1952 17th Pous. 1358 requiring the defendant to vacate on the expiry of the month of Magh. According to the plaintiff the defendant is not entitled to the protection of the Rent Control Act of 1950, because the plaintiff reasonably required the room for her own occupation and also for building a stair ease; she further alleged that the defendant was a defaulter from Chaitra, 1356 up to Kartik, 1357 which disentitled him to the protection under the Act of 1950. The plaintiff's case of reasonable requirement has been disbelieved by all the courts and does not arise for consideration. The only question is whether the defendant was a defaulter an three occasions of two months each within a period of eigh