( 1 ) THE validity of the recent amendments of the Rent Act of 1950 under the Constitution and specially the interpretation of Section 18 (5) of that Statute as amended are the important questions of controversy in this suit.

( 2 ) THE pltf. company instituted this suit on 17-12-1949, claiming ejectment of the deft. from room No. 209 on the ground floor of 57 Clive Street, Calcutta, now Netaji Sabhas Road, on the ground of ipso facto determination of deft's. tenancy under Section 12 (3), Rent Act of 1948 for the failure to pay or deposit three consecutive months' rent under that Act at the rate of Rs. 91 per month. These three months are Agrahayan Pous and Magh of the Bengali calendar year 1355 B. S. corresponding to the period from 17-11-1948, to 12-2-1949 in the English calendar. No notice to quit is pleaded in the plaint because under Section 12 (3), Rent Act of 1948, it was provided that upon such failure to pay or deposit rent, the interest of the tenant was ''ipso facto determined". I will refer hereinafter to ipso facto determination as statutory forfeiture.

( 3 ) THE defence raised in the written statement of the deft. is that rents of Agrahayan and Pous were duly sent to the pltf. by Money Order and the pltf. accepted the same and thereafter on pltf's. refusal, deposit was made regularly with the Rent Controller. In addition, the plea in the written statement is that by order of the 2nd Additional Rent Controller in Case No. 3500a of 1949 and dated 22-12-1949, the rent was reduced to Rs. 35 per month with effect from the month of October 1949. Deposit has been made at this reduced rate of Rs. 35 per month.

( 4 ) THERE are two admitted briefs of documents and correspondence in this suit-one is marked EX. 'a' and the other marked Ex. 1. There is another admitted document setting out the particulars of payment of rent and electric charges month by month, amounts of payment, and months for which such payments were made along with the dates of payment. This document is marked Ex, "d" in the suit.

( 5 ) AN attempt was made by the deft. to lead evidence by calling one Mohanlal Gupta but was given up. The suit has proceeded only on the admitted documents without any oral testimony.

( 6 ) A preliminary point was taken by Mr. Sadhan Gupta, counsel for the deft. that the suit is not maintainable without notice to quit, regard being had to the Rent Act of 1950, as amended by the amending Act. Mr. Gupta's contention is that the suit was filed when the Rent Act of 1948 was in operation on the ground of statutory forfeiture of tenancy without notice to quit. The Rent Act of 1950 as amended has avoided the statutory forfeiture and therefore, notice to quit is now necessary. I am unable to accept that argument. Neither the Rent Act of 1950 nor the amendment thereof, in my judgment, requires notice to quit in suits pending at the commencement of such Act on the ground of statutory forfeiture under Section 12 (3), Rent Act of 1948. The Rent Act of 1950 has abolished the statutory forfeiture of tenancy and the amendment gives relief to such tenants where a suit was pending against them on the ground of such statutory forfeiture. But the language of the statute of 1950 or of its amendment does not according to my interpretation, lead to the conclusion that such suit should fail because no notice to quit was given. The Rent Act, 1950, or its amendment does not make pending suits, on the ground of statutory forfeiture, incompetent because of the absence of the notice to quit. They only give certain reliefs to such tenants. Indeed, if it were otherwise, most of these pending suits would have failed on that ground alone and perhaps no such controversial provision like Section 18 (5), Rent Act, 1950, as amended need have been made at all. But the real answer is that a proper construction of the Statute and its amendment does not require either explicitly or even by necessary implication that a notice to quit must be se