JUDGMENT

S.R. Das, J. - This application by the plaintiffs for final judgment under Chap. XIIIA of the Rules of this Court raises an important question of practice, namely, in what circumstances an order for security or payment into Court can appropriately be made as a condition precedent to the granting of leave to the defendant to defend the suit.

2. The suit in which this application has been made is one for ejectment, arrears of rent and mesne profits until delivery of possession of the premises. The cause of action laid in the plaint and reiterated in greater detail in the joint affidavit of Panchanon Banerjee and Manindra Nath Bysack used in support of this application is as follows:

3. One Bibhuti Bibhusan Mukherjee, since deceased, was the owner of a half share in premises No. 17, Adwaitya Mullick Lane, having purchased the same under a deed of conveyance dated 16th June 1937. The plaintiff Kiranmoyee Dassee became the owner of the remaining half share in the premises by purchase at a sale held by this Court in December 1938. Under a verbal agreement made between the defendant and the said Bibhuti Bhusan Mukherjee and the plaintiff Kiranmoyee Dassee represented by Manindra Nath Bysack the defendant occupied the said premises from 1st August 1940 as a monthly tenant at a rent of Rs. 50 per month payable to the said Bibhuti Bhusan Mukherjee and the plaintiff Kiranmoyee Dassee in equal shares. The defendant paid full rent upto March 1941. Bibhuti Bhusan Mukherjee died intestate in April 1941 leaving the plaintiff Protima Sundari Debi as his sole heiress. After the death of Bibhuti Bhusan Mukherjee the defendant stopped payment of the half share of the rent payable to Bibhuti Bhusan Mukherjee and up to October 1941 only paid to Manindra Nath Bysack the agent of the plaintiff Kiranmoyee Dassi the half share of the rent payable to her. Since November 1941 the defendant has not paid any rent at all. Thereupon, on 6th May 1944 the plaintiffs through their attorney served a notice on the defendant to quit and vacate the premises on the expiry of the month of May 1944. This notice was sent on 6th May 1944 by registered post and a copy of it was also sent on the same day by ordinary post under a certificate of posting. On 25th May 1944, the defendant sent a reply to the plaintiffs' attorney stating that he had received the registered letter on 16th May 1944, that he was not a defaulter, that he did not know Protima Sundari Debi at all and that he had received two letters, one from Mr. Madan Mohon Sen, B.L. and the other from Mr. B.K. Dhole. A copy of the letter of Mr. Sen was enclosed in the defendant's reply. Mr. Sen's letter purported to have been written on behalf of one Ashalata Debi who claimed to be the owner of a half share in the premises.

4. This suit was filed on 12th July 1944 for recovery of possession of the premises, for payment of Rs. 775 as and by way of arrears of rent payable to Kironmoyee Dassee from November 1941 to May 1944 and for Rs. 875 as and by way of arrears of rent payable to Protima Sundari Debi from April 1941 to May 1944 and for mesne profits until delivery of possession of the premises. The writ of summons having been served on the defendant on 25th July 1944, the defendant entered appearance through his attorney on 3rd August 1944. The present summons was taken out on 15th August 1944 for final judgment under Chap. XIIIA of the Rules of this Court.

5. The defendant has affirmed and filed an affidavit in opposition to this application. In this affidavit the defendant solemnly affirms and says that the premises was let out to him in March 1940 by Sm. Ashalata Debi at the monthly rent of Rs. 50 including municipal taxes and that he occupied the house as from the month of May 1940. It is said that it was agreed that the defendant would get the necessary repairs and alterations made and electric fittings installed at his own costs not exceeding Rs. 3,000 and that the amount with interest at 9 per cent. per