A plaintiff in an ejectment suit must plead facts which would entitle him to get a decree and cannot get a decree by making vague allegations in the plaint and then fishing out for evidence when the suit is brought to trial.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the defendant against a decree for ejectment passed by the Special Bench of the Presidency Small Cause Court, Calcutta, affirming the decree made by the Fifth Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff came to Court with a case that he was entitled to a decree for ejectment against the defendant and the defendant was not entitled to protection of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, because he "was a habitual defaulter in the payment of rent from February, 1952 and has not paid two months rent legally payable by the defen-fendant to the plaintiff on three occasions within a period of 18 months. This statement made in the original plaint was amended by an order dated 2nd May, 1953, and after the amendment the allegation in paragraph 5 of the plaint stands as follows: "the defendant is a habitual defaulter in payment of rent and has not paid rent since August, 1952". The second sentence in this paragraph is the same as in the original plaint. After the amendment was allowed the defendant filed an additional written statement in which he asserted that the plaintiff should not be allowed to adduce any evidence beyond the plaint. At the trial, however, the plaintiff adduced evidence to prove that the defendant was a defaulter from the month of August, 1951 upto the month of September, 1952 and the trial Court came to the conclusion that the defendant was a defaulter from the month of August 1951 till September, 1952 and passed a decree for ejectment against the defendant. In coming to this conclusion the trial Court relied upon a certain letter of tenancy (Ext. 4) in which the defendant is said to have agreed to pay the rent of each month on or before the 10th day of the following month. Being dissatisfied with the decree made by the trial Court the defendant filed an appeal which was heard by the Special Bench. This special Bench came to the conclusion that the letter of tenancy relied upon by the plaintiff was not admissible in evidence for absence of registration and proceeded to consider the question whether the defendant was entitled to relief by relying upon the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950. According to the findings arrived. at by the Special Bench,. the defendant was a defaulter for the month of February, March, June, July, August and September, 1952. Though the conclusion arrived at by the Special Bench as to the period of default was different from that arrived at by the Court of first instance the Special Bench affirmed the decision of the first Court because the period of default fell within the mischief, of the proviso to Section 14 (3) read with Section 12 (1) (i) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act. Against that decision of the Special Bench the tenant defendant, has brought this Second appeal.

( 3 ) MR. Chatterjee appearing in support of the appeal has raised three points before me. The first point raised by him is that upon the allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint as it now stands, the plaintiff has no cause of action and the suit is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. To appropriate this point I must refer once more to paragraph 5 oi the plaint. In that paragraph as it originally stood the aliegation was that the defendant was a habitual defaulter in payment of cent from February, 1952 and has not paid rent since August 1952. After the amendment the allegation is that the defendant is a habitual defaulter in payment of rent and has not paid rent since August, 1952. The plaint was filed in Court on the 4th December, 1952. Taking the allegation at its face value it appears that the defendant was a defaulter from August 1952 up-to October, 1952 because the rent for November had not become due on the date on which the plaint was filed. The allegation, therefore, amounts to this that the defendant was a defaulter for the period of only three months which would certainly not entitle the pla