RENUPADA MUKHERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THE defendant of the trial court, Murlidhar Garodia, is appellant in this appeal. Respondent Purushottam Lal Jain instituted a suit against the-appellant for evicting him from an almirah shop on the ground floor of premises No. 194/198 Cross Street, Calcutta. A notice to quit is said to have been served upon the appellant requiring him to vacate the disputed shop after the expiry of 1st February, 1958. The suit was instituted: under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 on the ground that the tenant was a statutory defaulter and had forfeited his claim to protection by reason of defaults committed by him in payment of rent.

( 2 ) VARIOUS defences were taken by the tenant in his written-statement. We need not refer to all of them in this appeal. The trial court overruled the objections taken by the tenant defendant in his writ ten-statement and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. So the tenant has preferred this appeal.

( 3 ) THE only point pressed on behalf of the appellant by Mr. Lala in this appeal is that the notice served upon the appellant was not a valid or sufficient notice. This contention arises in the following way.

( 4 ) A notice by r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document