The requirement of serving a notice under section 586 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 is not attracted in a suit for eviction of the Corporation or a municipal authority or an Officer or employee of the Corporation etc. etc., as it applies only to suits which relate to an act done or purported to be done under the Act.

( 1 ) -THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26. 5. 1989 passed by Sri M. K. Gajra, Judge, City Civil Court, fifth Bench, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 1025 of 1983 of that Court. The relevant facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be summarised as follows :

( 2 ) SRI Sibamoy Chakraborty, the plaintiff of that suit and the respondent in the present appeal filed the suit for eviction and mesne profits against the tenant, Calcutta Municipal Corporation (the appellant) on the ground of his own use and requirement. His case was that he purchased the suit premises namely, Premises No. 56a, Sri Gopal Mullick Lane, Calcutta-700 012 by a registered deed dated 19. 4. 80 and on 15. 7. 83 he sent the notice to the defendant tenant terminating his tenancy on the expiry of the month of August, 1983 and the notice was duly served on the defendant but it did not vacate the suit premises and continued to occupy the same as trespasser. The plaintiff badly required the suit premises for his own use and occupation, in as much as, his joint family consisted of his widow mother, his wife, a research fellow and a school mistress, a school going daughter, a son, his brother and two sisters and one married sister with two daughters aged about 7 to 11 years and one maid servant. Due to non availability of sufficient accommodation the members of his family were living in two separate places with great inconvenience while the suit premises consisting of 4 rooms on the ground floor and 4 rooms in the first floor would meet his need fully. He had no other alternative suitable accommodation for his purpose and the members of his family were living in tenanted houses suffering serious difficulties and hardships. Hence he filed this suit after due service of notice upon the defendant-tenant for a decree of ejectment and khas possession and also for mesne profits.

( 3 ) THE defendant's case was that they were tenants in respect of the entire suit premises except one room on the second floor and the plaintiff's plea of reasonable requirement of the suit premises for his own use and occupation was a myth and his present accommodation was quite sufficient. The further case of the defendant is that the suit was bad due to non service of notices under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under section 586 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act and also the notice of ejectment was vague and insufficient.

( 4 ) THE learned trial Judge framed the following issues for trial of the suit:"1. IS the suit maintainable? 2. Is the suit bad for mis-joinder and/or non-joinder of parties? 3. Is the suit bad for non-service of notice under section 80 CPC and under section 568 of CMC Act of 1980? 4. Was the notice of ejectment served on the defendant? 5. Is the plaintiff owner of the suit premises? does the plaintiff require the suit premises for his own use and occupation? 6. Has the plaintiff any other reasonable suitable accommodation? 7. Is the plaintiff entitled to get a decree for khas possession of the suit premises as prayed for? 8. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

( 5 ) AFTER considering the evidence both oral and documentary adduced by the parties, the learned trial Judge was satisfied that the case of the plaintiff had been established and his plea of reasonable requirement had been proved and after deciding all the issues in favour of the plaintiff-respondent he decreed the suit and directed the defendant to make over khas possession of the suit premises in favour of the plaintiff within 3 months from the date of the judgment and also allowing mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 180/- per month with effect from the date of filing of the suit till the date of recovery of khas possession of the suit premises.

( 6 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with this judgment the defendant-corporation has preferred the present appeal challenging the same as illegal and unsustainable.

( 7 ) AT the very outset