( 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 Po