It is the duty of the court to consider whether the reasonable requirement of the landlord can be substantially satisfied by a partial eviction of the tenant, even if the tenant does not take a specific plea for that in the written statement.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff and the defendant arc both firms. The defendant was a monthly tenant under the plaintiff in respect of a godown at 45-A, Adya Sradh Ghat Road, Calcutta at Rs. 132-8-0 per month in accordance with the English calendar. The plaintiff required the disputed godown for its own use and occupation and accordingly the plaintiff determined the defendant's tenancy by service of notice to quit requiring the defendant to vacate the godown with the expiry of the last day of August, 1954. The defendant failed to vacate and hence the plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment. The defendant contested the suit. Its defence was that the notice was not legal or valid and that the plaintiff did not reasonably require the godown for its own use and occupation. Both the courts have concurrently found that the notice to quit was legal and valid and that the plaintiff reasonably required the godown for its own use and occupation. The suit was, therefore, decreed. Mr. Janah submits that the courts below should not have held that the plaintiff reasonably required the godown for its awn use and occupation. This is a pure question of fact and both the courts have concurrently found against the defendant. Mr. Janah has not been able to point out that the courts below failed to consider any relevant material on record on this point. The concurrent finding of the courts below, is, therefore, final and I find no reason to interfere with that finding.

( 2 ) MR. Janah then submits that the notice to quit is not legal or valid. The notice, as I have said required the defendant to vacate the premises with the last day of August, 1954. Mr. Janah submits that the plaintiff failed to prove that the tenancy was from the first to the last day of the month according to the English Calendar. The plaintiff is silent in the plaint about the commencement or the termination of the tenancy. It is not disputed that the oral evidence is also silent about the commencement or the termination of the tenancy. Mr. Janah refers to the decision in Surya Kumar Manji v. Trilochan Nath, and argues that since the plaintiff has not proved the date on which the tenancy commenced, the notice which was in accordance with the English calendar cannot be said to be legal and valid. Mr. Dutt, who appears for the plaintiff submits that the defendant during trial admitted the legality and the validity of the notice. It is true that the courts below have said that the legality and the validity of the notice were not challenged at the trial but on a reference to the written statement I find that the legality and the validity of the notice was challenged there. Be that as it may I find that the defendant had himself deposited rents with the Rent Controller in accordance with the English calendar. This shows that the tenancy was really from the first to the last day of the month in accordance with the English calendar. Mr. Jana submits that these deposits were made after the suit was filed. But that is immaterial. If the tenancy was in accordance with the Bengali calendar or if the tenancy commenced from any other date of the English month the defendant ought have deposited rents accordingly. Thus though there is no evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff to prove the commencement of the tenancy, these challans showing deposit of rent by the defendant prove the month of the tenancy and therein prove the legality and the validity of the notice. This point of Mr. Janah, therefore fails.

( 3 ) MR. Janah lastly submits that the courts below failed to consider the proviso to the explanation to proviso (h) of Section 12 (1) of the Kent Control Act, 1950 which says "provided that where the court thinks that the reasonable requirement of such occupation may be substantially satisfied by evicting the tenant from a part only of the premises and allowing the tenant to continue occupation of the rest and the tenant agrees to such occupation the court shall pass a decree acc