P L D 1960 Dacca 928 (PLP)

This appeal is by the tenant‑defendant. It arises out of a suit for ejectment of the defendant, a monthly tenant under the plaintiff, from the house in suit on the ground of default of payment of runt by the tenant‑defendant and bona fide require ment of the house' by the landlord.

2. The suit was filed after serving a notice. It was contested by the tenant‑defendant contending, inter alia, that he was not liable to be evicted and that the notice was not valid.

3. The suit was decreed on, contest but, on appeal by the tenant‑defendant, it was sent back on remand for fresh trial after considering the question whether the suit is maintainable with out the sanction of the Rent Controller. When the suit came up for hearing on remand, the plaintiff filed the permission obtain ed from the House Rent. Controller to sue the defendant in ejectment. Therefore, two questions arose for consideration before the trial Court, namely, (1) validity of the notice and (2) liability of the defendant to be ejected.

4. Both the Courts below found that Exh. 1, a registered letter containing the notice to quit, and Exh. 2, another notice on the defendant to vacate the house served by the plaintiff's son in the presence of witnesses, were valid and binding and that the defendant was liable to be ejected both on the ground of default of payment of rent and of bona fide requirement as well as on the ground of permission of the Rent Controller which had been subsequently obtained and filed in the suit. Therefore, both the Courts below passed the decree for ejectment against the defendant. Hence this appeal by the tenant‑defendant.

5. It is contended by Mr. Dutta, the learned Advocate for the appellant, that in view of the provisions in sections 18 and 19 of the East Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1953, the per mission of the House Rent Controller is a condition precedent to the filing of a suit for ejectment against the tenant and without that permission the suit is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he relied on the wording of sections 18 and 19 of the said Act both of which provide "that no suit or proceeding shall be entertained or proceeded with by any Court unless the landlord has been permitted by the Controller by an order in writing . . . . . to institute or proceed with such a suit or proceeding."

6. The contention of Mr. Dutta is that when the suit was filed it was filed without the permission of the House Rent Controller and, as such, it was not entertainable. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the respondent contends that the wording in the sections not only means that no suit shall be entertained but also that no suit or proceeding shall be enter tained or proceeded with by any Court, which again means that even if the suit is filed it can be proceeded with if the permission of the House Rent Controller is obtained for proceeding with the suit. But this contention of the learned Advocate for the respondent will be difficult to sustain in view of the permission, Exh. 7, granted by the House Rent Controller which shows that the plaintiff was permitted to institute a suit. It is not 'the permission to proceed with the suit already filed. Nor can I accept the contention of Mr. Dutta, the learned Advocate for the appellant that the suit, which had already been flied without the permission of the House Rent Controller to institute such a suit, should have been dismissed as not maintain able. Though the section speaks of "no suit or proceeding by a landlord against a tenant . . . . . shall be entertained or proceeded with by any Court . . . ", it does not say that no a suit shall be filed without the permission of the House Rent Con troller. Therefore, filing of the suit was not barred. What ii barred is the entertainment of the suit by the Court which means that the suit "shall not be considered by the Court" unless a permission from the House Rent Controller has been produced by the landlord. In this case we find that after remand the land lord opposite party has obtained an order in writing from the House Rent Controller permitting him to institute a suit. I think that is sufficient for the entertainment of the suit by the Court.

7. Next contention of Mr." Dutta is that the suit was filed on the ground of bona fide requirement which requires permis sion under section 18 of the East Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, ' 1953. But, from the permission itself (Exh. 7), it appears that it was granted on the ground of non‑payment of rent under section 18 and not under section

19. From the permission itself it appears that the landlord asked for permission to sue the defendant in ejectment both on the ground of default of payment of rent and of bona fide requirement. The House Rent Controller opined that the default of payment of rent by itself is sufficient to grant permission to sue the tenant‑defendant in eject ment but that does not mean that he was not granted permis sion on the ground of bona fide requirement. Though he described the permission as one under section 18, really it was the permis sion under both the section.

8. The result, therefore, is that this appeal has got no substance and is accordingly dismissed with costs.

9. Prayer for leave to appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is refused. K. B.A Appeal dismissed.