A power of attorney authorizing an agent to file suits for eviction against tenants on behalf of the principal impliedly authorizes the agent to issue a notice of ejectment to the tenant on behalf of the principal.

JUDGMENT:- The property involved in this litigation is situate in Gauhati town and was originally owned by Eda Khan who had let it out to Mia Singh more than a quarter of century ago at a monthly rent of Rs.35/-. Eda Khan was survived by a widow, two sons including Abdul Kader, and three daughters. Abdul Kader died unmarried and Eda Khans widow breathed her last on 27-2-61, about six months before the suit out of which this second appeal has arisen was instituted on 5-8-61. Therefore, as at present, the three daughters and the only living son Noor Ahmed of Eda Khan are the owners of the property.

2. The suit was filed by Noor Ahmed and his three sisters for eviction of Mia Singh on the grounds that he was a defaulter in the matter of payment of rent since 1st of August, 1955, that he had sub-let a part M the property to the defendant No.3 Amivangshu Ghose without the consent of the landlord, and that the property was bona fide required by the plaintiffs for their own business. Besides the prayer of eviction and recovery of Rs.1015/- as arrears of rent the plaintiffs had laid claim to Rs.700/- by way of compensation for use and occupation for the period after the tenancy of Eda Khan had been terminated by giving him notice of eviction on 16-11-60 requiring him to vacate the premises by 31st of December, 1960. This compensation was claimed at the rate of Rs.100/- per mensem.

3. Apart from Mia Singh and Amivangshu Ghose, the plaintiffs had impleaded Mia Singhs son Bir Singh as a pro forma defendant. Mia Singh having died during the pendency of the suit, his son Bir Singh assumed the role of principal defendant.

4. In the written statement filed by Mia Singh, he had denied sub-letting of any part of the property, or that he was a defaulter, or that the property was required bona fide by the plaintiff Noor Ahmed for the purposes of his business. Mia Singh pleaded, while denying the charge of his being a defaulter, that he had expended a sum of Rs.4536 on repairs, improvements and extension of the demised property, that that much expense he had incurred with the knowledge and consent of Abdul Kader, the deceased son of Eda Khan, and that if that amount of Rs.4536/- was credited to the account, it would be found that he had paid more than the rent which was due to the plaintiffs by the date of the suit. Mia Singh denied that the plaintiffs were entitled to claim any compensation from him for use and occupation or at the rate of Rupees 100/- per mensem.

5. As many as 15 issues were settled between the parties by the trial Court. The substance of the findings reached by it was that the rent up to July, 1955, had been paid by Mia Singh, that thereafter he had not paid even a penny towards the rent and as such he was a defaulter, that the plaintiffs required the premises bona fide for the purposes of their business, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to get rent at the contractual rate up to 31-12-60 and compensation thereafter at the same rate and not at the rate of Rs.100/- per mensem claimed by them. In consequence of these findings the plaintiffs were awarded a decree for the recovery of Rs.1260/-. Rupees 1015/- as arrears of rent and Rs.245/- for use and occupation and for ejectment of the defendants from the property in dispute together with proportionate costs. The defendants were given one months time for vacating the premises.

6. An appeal by Bir Singh against the decree of the trial Court in the Court of the District Judge, L.A.D., Gauhati, proved unavailing. It was dismissed with costs though it was held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that they required the premises in dispute bona fide for the purposes of their business. However, the District Judge held that the tenant was not only liable to eviction for reason of non-payment of rent but also for having sublet a part of the premises without the consent and authority of the landlord.

7. Shri P. Choudhury, who appeared for the appellant Bir Singh in this Cour