Manicklal Dey Chaudhuri vs Kadambini Dassi on 10 December, 1925
6. Finally it was contended that the landlord has accepted rent during the continuance of this appeal. By an order dated 17 8-1948 passed by this Court proceedings in execution were stayed. The landlord was entitled to receive compensation for use & occupation of the house during this period. He had received this money according to the allegation of the appellant month by month. He may even have used the word "rent" in some of the receipts which he issued. Having regard, however, to the fact that the person issuing those receipts was not a lawyer & did not receive legal training, the use of the word "rent" instead of "damages" for use & occupation is immaterial, & no importance can be attached to it. The only effect of such a receipt would be a waiver of the right of ejectment It has, however, been held by me in Kamlapat v. Mt. Manho Bibi, 1947 O.W.N. 522 disagreeing with the decision in Manicklal v. Kadambini, A. I. R. (13) 1926 Cal. 763, that if the landlord actively continues the prosecution of the
case or appeal with regard to the ejectment of the
tenant mere acceptance of rent by him cannot be
treated as waiver so as to deprive him of the right
of ejectment in pursuance of the decree which he
had obtained. This plea also, therefore, cannot be
accepted. This appeal fails & is dismissed with
costs. The stay order dated 17-8-1948 is vacated.