Non-payment of rent for any part of a month in a tenancy from month to month constitutes default for that month, and six consecutive months of default attract the mischief of the proviso to Section 14 (3) of the Rent Control Act, 1950.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment. The suit was decreed by the trial Court, but on appeal, it has virtually been dismissed as the deposit which the learned Subordinate Judge directed the contesting defendant tenant to make to avoid ejectment has already been made. Against this appellate decision, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.

( 2 ) THE suit property comprises premises No. 38/1-G, Manicktola Main Road. The contesting defendant 1 was a tenant therein from the time of the previous owner Sahajadi Begum, from whom the plaintiff purchased the premises on 15-3-1951. In July 1951, the plaintiff gave the tenant defendant a notice to quit, requiring him to vacate the suit premises on the expiry of August, 1951, and upon the tenant's failure to quit, the present suit was instituted on 6-11-1951. The tenant was made defendant 1 and certain alleged sub-tenants were made defendants 2 to 4.

( 3 ) EJECTMENT was claimed, inter alia, on the ground of reasonable requirement of the suit premises for the plaintiff's own use and occupation and also on the ground of default in the payment of rent. This latter ground! was added by amendment of the plaint, but there can be no question that the amendment was rightly allowed. The contesting defendant duly filed his additional written statement.

( 4 ) THE main defence was a denial of the plaintiff's plea of reasonable requirement and also of his allegation of default. There was a further plea that the defendant had spent about Rs. 5,000/- on repairs, for which he would be entitled to get credit as against rent, and, that being the position, the allegation of default would be entirely unfounded. The other defences have not been pressed in this Court and they are not material for purposes of this appeal.

( 5 ) THE learned Munsif overruled! all the de-fences. He found first that the tenant defendant was a defaulter from 15-3-1951, to September, 1951, by reason whereof he was debarred from claiming any relief against ejectment under Section 14. Rent Control Act of 1950 in view of the proviso to Sub-section (3) thereof. He found further that the plaintiff had, made out a rase of reasonable requirement for her own use and occupation within the meaning of Section 12 (1) (h) of the Act. He, accordingly, decreed ejectment, giving the defendant one month's time to vacate the disputed premises.

( 6 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge took a contrary view. He held against the plaintiff on the question of reasonable requirement of the suit premises for her own use and occupation. He held also that the tenant defendant was not a defaulter for the requisite three occasions of two months each, so as to be hit by the proviso to Section 14 (3), Rent Control Act of 1950. He, accordingly, set aside the decree for ejectment upon the tenant's depositing in Court Rs. 111-15-9 pies, found due under Section 14 (1) of the Act, within 15 days. That deposit was duly made and, accordingly, the learned Munsif's decree for ejectment stood completely reversed.

( 7 ) INCIDENTALLY, at this stage, it may be noted that, by directing the tenant defendant to make the above deposit, the learned Subordinate Judge appears to have accepted the learned Munsif's finding, made in the proceedings under Section 14 (4), Rent Control Act of 1950, rejecting the tenant's plea that he had effected repairs of the disputed premises at his own costs,

( 8 ) IN arguing the appeal, Mr. Gupta raised two short contentions.

( 9 ) IN the first place, he urged that the learned Subordinate Judge's judgment on the question of the plaintiff's reasonable requirement of the premises for her own use and occupation, rejecting her said plea, was not a proper judgment of reversal. He argued that there had been no proper consideration of this aspect of the matter by the learned Subordinate Judge and, on this point he prayed for remand.

( 10 ) THERE is substance in this contention and I accept it. Mr. Gupta u