The Calcutta Weekly Notes June 15 1953

B. Mukharji J.) and it was held that while the proviso of section 14(3) of the Rent Act of 1950 should not be applied to atract the pre-Amendment Act defaults it should nevertheless be applied to attitet post-Amendment Act defaults provided of course the defaults continued after the Amendment Act came into force ' for the period mentioned in the proviso. [...] The result was expressed in the following form (i) In exercising under section 18(5) of the Rent Act of f 95o as amend ed the powers of granting relief against ejectment given by section 4 in suits brought during the Act of 1948 and pening at the date of main 195o Act sub-setion (2) of section 14 is to be applied with and not without the proviso. [...] (iii) The proviso will have effect in the case of such suits pending at the date of the amending Act but only with respect to defaults committed after the date of the said Act. [...] Where a suit on a promissory note is brought against the father by an endorsee of the promissory note who is not also an assignee of the debt the doctrine of pious obligation of the sons for the liability of the father is not attracted and accordingly the sons cannot be impleaded in. [...] The Court must be satisfied that the findings of the trial Court are grossly wrong or that the approach of the trial Court to the evidence in the case or the procedure adopted in trying it was so materially defective that there was a compelling reason for interfeence by the High Court.