A notice of ejectment served on a tenant by a person who is not the landlord is invalid.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from a judgment and decree dated Januarv 11 1963 passed by the Judge. 6th Bench City Civil Court by which the defendant was ordered to be evicted from a flat in Bentinck Street. The facts and circumstances of the case are briefly as follows:

( 2 ) SOMETIME in October, 1959 the defendant became a tenant in respect of a flat in the second floor of premises No. 29b, Bentinck Street. Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises) at a monthly rent of of 95 per month. The flat consisted of two rooms The rent was pavable according to the English calendar month. There is some controversy as to who exact-tv were thf landlords and also as to the manner in which the rent was payable. The plaintiffs' case is that there were three landlords viz. Kartick Chandra Saha, Ganesh Chandra Saha and Tarak Chandra Saha and that rent was pavable in advance within the 5th o every current month. According to the defendant on the other hand Kartick Chandra Saha alone was the landlord and there was no stipulation that rent was to be said in advance on the fifth of the current month According to the plaintiffs the defendant's tenancy was determined by a notice of ejectment dated 19th April 1961 issued by the plaintiffs' advocate calling upon the defendant to quit and vacate the said premises and to deliver up peaceful and vacant possession of the same to the plaintiffs on the expiry of May, 1961. It is alleged that the defendant was a defaulter in regard to payment of rent having failed or neglected to pay rents to the plaintiffs since December 1960. It is further claimed that the defendant having made more than four defaults in the course of 12 months is not entitled to any protection under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) The defendant failed to comply with the notice of ejectment and this suit was thereafter filed in the City Civil Court for Khas possession of the premises by eviction of the defendant, its agents and servants

( 3 ) IN the written statement the defendant raised the following pleas in defence: (i) The plaintiffs did not have a right to sue (ii) Kartick Chandra Saha alone was the landlord of the defendant and not the three plaintiffs. (iii) The rent was never payable in advance on the fifth day of the current month as alleged (iv) The notice of ejectment was neither legal nor valid, (v) The defendant was not a defaulter.

( 4 ) ON these pleadings the following issues were framed for determination at the time of trial (1) Is the defendant a defaulter in payment of rent? (2) Is the rent payable in advance on the 5th day of the current month? (3) Is the ejectment notice valid, legal and sufficient? (4) Is there any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? (5) What relief or reliefs are the plaintiffs entitled to?

( 5 ) EVIDENCE was adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs as well as on behalf of the defendant before the learned trial Judge who after hearing the oral evidence and considering the documents proved at the time of trial recorded his findings on the issues Except as to Issue No. 2 all his findings were adverse to the defendant and the learned Judge, on the basis of his findings, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs The defendant has now come up in appeal.

( 6 ) MR. Dipankar Ghosh appearing for the defendants before us challenged the findings of the learned Judge mainly on three grounds. His first ground was that only Kartick Chandra Saha was the landlord of the defendant so that both the noti-ces of ejectment which were served on behalf of three persons as well as the plaint which was framed on behalf of three plaintiffs were bad in law and the suit was not, therefore, maintainable. Secondly, Mr. Ghosh argued that there had been no default in the payment of rents as alleged. Thirdly, Mr. Ghosh argued, his client was entitled to relief under the new West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Ordinance, 1967.