A notice to quit demanding possession at the end of the anniversary of the commencement of the tenancy is not vague or insufficient or invalid.

( 1 ) IN this appeal by the defendant which arises out of a suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages, two questions have been raised by Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the defendant-appellant. The first is whether the defendant-appellant is entitled to any benefits under either Section 18 (5) or Section 14, West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 and the second question relates to the legality, validity and sufficiency of the notice to quit which, according to the plaintiff-respondent and the Courts below, determined the tenancy in the present case.

( 2 ) THE material facts as found by the Courts below are not now in dispute and they are as follows:

( 3 ) THE defendant was a monthly tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the two rooms in suit in holding No. 172, Panchanantala Road, Howrah, at a rental of Rs. 12/- per month. There was default in payment of rent and, therefore, the plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of over nine months' rent and therein the plaintiff obtained a decree against the defendant. Even after the institution of the said suit the default in the payment of rent continued and, accordingly, the plaintiff served a notice to quit on the defendant on 19-7-1945 and brought the present suit for ejectment and the other reliefs, mentioned above, on 29-9-1945, after obtaining the necessary permission from the Rent Controller under the law then in force.

( 4 ) BOTH the Courts below have decreed the plaintiff's suit holding 'inter alia' that the notice to quit (copies whereof are Exs. 2 and 3 (a) ) was legal, valid and sufficient and that it had been properly served upon the defendant and had duly terminated his tenancy. In this appeal against the said decree for ejectment Mr. Mukherjee has, as stated above, raised only two contentions which have been mentioned above.

( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, the suit was instituted on 29-9-1945. At that time the Bengal House Rent Control Order, 1942 was in force at Howrah. So far, therefore, as the recent Rent Laws are concerned, this case would, in my opinion, be governed by the provisions of the said Rent Control Order, 1942, unless there be something in the subsequent Rent Laws applicable to the present case. Mr. Mukherjee has argued that Sections 14 and 18 (5) of the Rent Act of 1950 would be applicable to the present case. His argument is that the said sections are retrospective and apply to the present case. In my opinion, this argument cannot be accepted. Section 14, so far as it confers benefit upon the tenant is not retrospective except to the extent that it is attracted by Section 18 (5 ). Unless, therefore, Section 18 (5) applies to the present case Section 14 cannot be of any assistance to the appellant.

( 6 ) DEALING with this part of the case, Mr. Mukherjee urges that Section 18 (5) is expressly retrospective and applies to pending cases. The difficulty, however, is that the section is retrospective only to this extent that "it applies to a pending action for ejectment only when that action is of such a type that no decree of ejectment would be passed therein except on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948, or after the recent amendment of the said Section 18 (5) on the ground that the interest of the tenant in the premises in question has been 'ipso facto' determined under the provisions of Sub-section 3 of Section 12, West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948. " The portion underlined (here in " ") above indicates that, in order that Section 18 (5) may apply, the case must be one where the decree for ejectment can be passed only on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent or 'ipso facto' determination of the tenancy under the Act of 1948. The present case does not, in my opinion, fall within that description. The suit in the present instance was, as I have said above, i