Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
D. N. SINHA, A. K. MUKHERJI, S. K. MUKHERJEE
ABDUL GANI - Appellant
Versus
MD. ISRAIL - Respondent
A. F. O. D. Full Bench Ref. 675 Of 1962
Decided On : JUNE 19, 1968
NOTICE TO QUIT - WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1956 - SECTION 13 (6) - NOTICE OF SUIT - COMBINED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT AND SECTION 13 (6) OF THE ACT - SUFFICIENCY - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was for eviction of the defendant, a monthly tenant, from one ground floor room within the premises 71a, Colootolla Street, Calcutta. A notice to quit dated 21st September. 1961 was given by the landlord through his lawyer, a copy of which is set out in the order of reference. It sets out two grounds, corresponding to clauses (a) and (f) of Section 13 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act' ). There is no express statement therein to the effect that in default of making over possession a suit will be filed.
Finding of the Court:
A notice as contemplated under Section 13 (6) is essentially a notice of suit. Where it was necessary to serve a notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, it is still necessary to serve it. A notice under section 13 (6) may be combined with a notice under Section 106 but the period of such combined notice shall not be less than a month expiring with a month of the tenancy. There is no prescribed form of such a notice. It is not necessary to mention in a notice under Section 13 (6) the ground or grounds if ejectment for which a suit is to be instituted for recovery of possession. There is, however, nothing to prevent the landlord from setting out such ground in the notice. The notice, however, will not be a notice of such grounds.
Issues: 1. In a consolidated notice under the Transfer of Property Act (sections 106 and 111) and Section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 1956 is it necessary to make a statement that a suit will be filed if the notice is not complied with? 2. Where notice is given, setting out any of the grounds in Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 1956 and particularly if it is written by a lawyer on behalf of the landlord, is it not a sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 13 (6), although there is no express statement that a suit will be filed in default of compliance with the notice ? 3. Is the notice to quit in this case a legally valid notice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A notice under Section 13 (6) of the said Act is a "notice of suit" but it is not necessary to mention expressly in the notice that a suit will be brought if possession is not given. As lone as a tenant, familial with the facts of the case, can reasonably infer from the notice that such a suit or proceeding will be commenced ,f possession is not given that is enough in other words the notice must be a notice of suit by express words or necessary intendment. 2. Where it is expressly mentioned that a suit will be brought if possession is not given, there is nothing further to say. But what are the circumstances under which there will be a necessary intendment? Obviously, there are a number of circumstances which may give rise to the inference that a suit will be brought. Some of then have been referred to in the decisions mentioned above. It has been held that the mention of Section 13 (6) is sufficient. It has further been held that the use of the words "till evicted in due course of law" is also quite sufficient. Thus, an immediate threat need not be contained in the letter. The expression of an intention that proceedings will be taken in future is quite enough. We must also carefully keep in mind the principle that such notices should not be interpreted by the splitting of straws, but we should consider as to what a person, quite familial with the circumstances, will infer from the words used and the surrounding circumstances
Final Decision: Yes, if the grounds set out are grounds which entitle the landlord to obtain a decree or order for recovery of possession; that is to say the grounds specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 13 except clauses (j) and (k ).
( 1 ) THIS is a reference in which three questions have been referred to us for answer. The relevant facts are all set out in the order of reference. It will be convenient to refer to it briefly. The suit was for eviction of the defendant, a monthly tenant, from one ground floor room within the premises 71a, Colootolla Street, Calcutta. A notice to quit dated 21st September. 1961 was given by the landlord through his lawyer, a copy of which is set out in the order of reference. It sets out two grounds, corresponding to clauses (a) and (f) of Section 13 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act' ). There is no express statement therein to the effect that in default of making over possession a suit will be filed. As the referring Court was of the view that the proposition laid down in the decision of the Division Bench in Dulin Chand Dutta v. Renuka Banerjee, 68 Cal WN 296 that if a notice to quit would not, by itself, be a notice of suit, the mere mention of the ground of ejectment in a notice to quit, would not make it so, is too wide, a reference was made to a Full Bench for its decision on three points which have been 5et out in the Order of Reference and are as follows: (1) In a consolidated notice under the Transfer of Property Act (sections 106 and 111) and Section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 1956 is it necessary to make a statement that a suit will be filed if the notice is not complied with? (2) Where notice is given, setting out any of the grounds in Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 1956 and particularly if it is written by a lawyer on behalf of the landlord, is it not a sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 13 (6), although there is no express statement that a suit will be filed in default of compliance with the notice ? (3) Is the notice to quit in this case a legally valid notice?" under the Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882) a contractual tenancy which is in the nature of a monthly tenancy, that is to say in the nature of a lease from month to month, could be terminated by the landlord by serving upon the tenant. 15 days' notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy, provided of course that there was no contract or local law or usage to the contrary. The only condition for terminating the tenancy was the service of such a notice. Owing to hardship caused by the dearth of accommodation, Bent Control Laws have been enacted all over the world, and have been more or less continuously imposed in Bengal since 1920. We are concerned in this case with the provisions of the said Act. Chapter III of the said Act deals with suits and proceedings for eviction. Section 13 gives protection to tenants against eviction. The relevant provisions in Section 13 are as follows:"13. Protection of tenant against eviction (1) - Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any Court in favour of the landlord against a tenant except on one or more of the following grounds namely: - (a) where the tenant or any person residing in the premises let to the tenant without the previous consent in writing if the landlord transfers, assigns or sublets in whole or in part the premises held by him: (f) where the premises are reasonably required by the landlord either for purposes of' building or rebuilding or for making thereto substantial additions or alterations or for Ms own occupation if he is the owner or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the premises are held: (6) Notwithstanding anything in any other law for the time being in force, no suit or proceeding for the recovery of possession of any premises on any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (11 except the grounds mentioned in clauses (i) and (k) of that sub-section shall be filed by the landlord unless he has given to the tenant one month's notice e
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
