It is not necessary to mention in a notice under Section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 the ground or grounds of ejectment under the aforesaid Act, on which the suit is to be brought.

( 1 ) THESE nine appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated 16th November 1959 and 7th December 1959 respectively passed by the Judge, 3rd Bench City Civil Court, against the defendant-appellant in nine suits The judgment in question really covers ten suits all filed by the plaintiff. Nine of these suits were filed against the same defendant Punamchand Daga and one against Manack-lal Bhutra Punamchand Daga has filed an appeal against the decree of ejectment in all the nine suits in which he was the defendant.

( 2 ) THE facts and circumstances of the use are briefly as follows: Defendant Punamchand Daga was a tenant of the plaintiff in respect of four rooms on the fourth floor and five rooms on the second floor of premises No 36, Shibtola Street. Each of these rooms was held by the defendant under a separate tenancy All the tenancies were running from Sudi 9th to Sudi 8th according to the Vikram Sambat year The rents payable by the defendant in respect of these tenancies have been stated in the respective plaints. The plaintiff complains that the defendant did not pav any rent in respect of these nine tenancies from Pous Sudi 9th, 2014 S Y (corresponding to 31st December 1957 ). The defendant contended that he was not a defaulter and that no ejectment notice had been served on him. He also contended that there were two tenancies and not nine as alleged by the plaintiff so that the suits as framed were bad.

( 3 ) VARIOUS issues were framed in all these nine suits; they were, however, more or less the same in each suit. The learned trial Judge found against the defendant on all the issues His findings were briefly as follows-: (i) There were nine tenancies as alleged by the plaintiff and not two. Therefore, the suits have been correctly framed and were maintainable: (ii) The defendant had been a defaulter in payment of rent since Pous Sudi 9th, 2014 S Y corresponding to 31st December 1957; (iii) The ejectment notice in each of these suits had been refused by the defendant. Therefore, there was service of the ejectment notice as required by law: (iv) The contents of the notices show that the notices were in order: (v) With regard to the defendant's contention that there was an agreement between the partie that rent would be payable only against presentation of bills, this has been disbelieved by the learned trial Judge. He held that the rent was payable as soon as it became due -it the close of the month.

( 4 ) ON these findings the learned Judg" decreed all the suits against the defendant.

( 5 ) MR. Charu Chandra Ganguly appearing for the defendant-appellant argued that the notices had not been served. Mr. Gan-Rulv of course, realised the weakness of his case when the evidence as well as the learned Judge's findings on this point were pointed out to him and ultimately ended by saying that in the case of at least one notice, service had not been proved. This notice appears at oage 110 of Part II of the Paper Book. We compared the paper book copy of the registered cover with the original and found that the paper book copy is not quite a correct com of the writings of the original COVPT Thfif war an endorsement 'n/m bv the peon made on 26th July which does not appear in the printed copy of the registered cover. "n/m" obviously it ands for "not Met" We have compared the other registered covers all dated 8th July, 1958 where we find the words "not Met" have been clearly written. Only in the case of this envelope the portal peon satisfied himself by merely writing "n/m". There is another endorsement just below the endorsement of 26th July to the effect "refused". That endorsement is dated 29th July. The Paper Book unfortunately does not give this date at all. Mr. Ganguly's argument was based mainly on the mistakes contained in the copy of the registered cover. A look at the original exhibit shows clearly that there is no substance in the argument.

( 6 ) MR. Ganguly then argued that there had be