P. B. MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a suit for possession of premises No. 3a, Anukul Mukherjee Road, Calcutta, for arrears of rent for the two months of Jaistha and Aswar 1354 B. S. corresponding to 16th May to 17th July 1947 amounting to Rs. 202 and for mesne profits and other reliefs. The plaintiff's case is that she is the owner of the said premises and that the defendant was a monthly tenant under her at a rent of Rs. 101 per month. The plaintiff gave a notice of ejectment through her Solicitors Messrs. Mitter and Bural on 29th May 1947 calling upon the defendant to quit and vacate on the expiry of the month of Aswar 1354 B. S. corresponding to 17th July 1947. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant sub-let the premises without her consent. This suit was filed on 21st July 1947.

( 2 ) THE defendant filed his written statement admitting the receipt of notice to quit. He also admits sub-letting but states in his written state. ment that it was a condition of the tenancy that he should sub-let portions of the premises. The defendant states also that at the time when he took over the said premises as a tenant there were existing sub-tenants on the premises. He claims protection under the Calcutta Rent Ordinance, 1946, and pleads deposit of all rents with the Kent Controller.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the defendant the following Issues were raised: (1) Was there any agreement as alleged in para. 2 of the written statement? (2) Has the defendant sublet the major portion of the said premises for more than six consecutive months without the plaintiff's consent? Even if so, if such subletting was not for six months from 1st December 1948, can such subletting be a ground of ejectment? (3) Has the defendant de. posited all rents under the Rent Ordinance Act up to date? (4) Is the notice to quit bad in law under the new Rent Act? (5) To what reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

( 4 ) ISSUE No. 1.--The agreement pleaded in para. 2 of the written statement is that the plaintiff let the premises to the defendant on condition that the defendant would take it subject to the sub-tenancies then existing and to be entitled to sub-let portion thereof not required for his own purpose. After discussing the evidence, his Lordship proceeded;] On these facts I have no hesitation in holding that there was no agreement as stated in para 2 of the written statement and answering issue No. 1 in the negative.

( 5 ) ISSUE No. 2.--[after discussing the evidence, his Lordship proceeded:] I hold therefore on the evidence that- the defendant sublet the major portion of the said premises for more than six months, without consent in writing of the plaintiff. It will be proper at this stage to deal with a point of law raised by Mr. J. O. Gupta and which is concerned with the interpretation of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948. Mr. Gupta has argued first that the words "in writing" qualify the word "authority" only and not the word "contract" in Section 11. Proviso (b) (i), Rent Act. On an anxious consideration of this argument I find I cannot accept this construction. In my judgment any contract to sub-let is a kind of authority given to the tenant by the landlord and the words "contract" and "authority" are to be read as ejusdem generis in this section. That is why the word "other" is used in that part of the statute under consideration. If the words "contract" and "authority" were not to be read ejusdem generis then the word "other" would be meaningless. Besides the use of the word "expressly" in my opinion indicates that the Legislature intended that the contract must be expressed. The word "expressly" qualifies also "in writing". In other words an authority in writing from which it might follow by implication a permission of sub-letting will not protect the tenant. The Legislature therefore intended to exclude cases of implied as opposed to express permission of sub-letting. If in the case of even an authority in writin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document