A notice to quit served on a tenant under sec. 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, must expressly or by necessary implication inform the tenant that a suit will be filed against him if he fails to vacate the premises.

1. The appellant before us was the defendant in the suit for ejectment, out of which the instant appeal arises.

2. The suit was in respect of the southern portion of premises No. 6, Marcus Square, Calcutta. It was held by the defendant as a tenant under the plaintiff and, prior to the plaintiff's purchase of the disputed premises, under his predecessor, at a rental of Rs. 105/-per month, the tenancy running according to the English calendar month. The plaintiff purchased the disputed premises from the previous landlord by and under a kobala, dated January 25, 1958. The defendant duly attorned to the plaintiff after the latter's above purchase. Thereafter, a notice, dated November 24, 1958, was served on the defendant by the plaintiff on November 25, 1958, purporting to terminate the defendant's tenancy and asking him to quit and vacate the disputed premises on the expiry of the month of December, 1958. This notice not having been complied with, the instant suit was filed on February 11, 1959. The suit was contested and, in paragraph 6 of the written statement, a plea was taken as to the invalidity and insufficiency of the above notice. At the time of trial also, a point of invalidity of the notice under inter alia sec. 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, appears to have been urged and to have engaged the attention of the learned trial Judge. The defence, however, was overruled and the plaintiff's suit was decreed.

The suit, it may be mentioned, was on the ground of the plaintiff's reasonable requirement of the disputed premises for his own occupation. This ground was also stated in the notice. The present appeal was filed in this court on April 2, 1962, and, in ground No. 7 of the Memorandum of Appeal, the point about the invalidity of the notice was taken. For reasons, already given by us in our judgment, delivered today in F. A. 449 of 1962, the instant notice also must be held to be bad and to be invalid and insufficient for purposes of sec. 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. It is, no doubt, a valid notice to quit. It is also certainly more than a month's notice but it is not a notice of suit, either expressly or by necessary implication, as required by the said section under the Special bench decisions of this court in F. A. 444 of 1961 [messrs. Suraya Properties (P) Ltd. v. Bimalendu N. Sarkar, 67 C. W. N. 977] (1) and F. A. 's Nos. 101 and 102 of 1961 (M. K. Bhimani and Anr. v. Keshab Chandra Basu and Ors.) (2. The mere mention of the ground of ejectment, although that may be a ground, relevant for purposes of sec. 13 (6) of the above Act, or, for the matter of that, of sec. 13 (1) thereof, barring the excepted clauses (j) and (k), would not, as already held by us in our aforesaid judgments, make it a notice of suit by necessary implication. The notice in question is, obviously, not an express notice of suit and, in the above view, it will not be also a notice of suit by necessary implication. It will, accordingly, be invalid and insufficient as a notice of suit for purposes of sec. 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. On this ground, the trial court's decree must be vacated, the instant appeal should succeed and the plaintiff's suit should fail.

3. The other questions, raised in this proceeding,-not relating to the notice but touching the merits of the case,-not being necessary for consideration now in the above view of the matter, are being left open by us. Mr. Sen, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff respondent, while realising that the impugned notice might be invalid or insufficient for purposes of sec. 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and this invalidity or insufficiency may lead to the dismissal of his client's suit, as aforesaid, sought to argue that the above objection is no longer open to the defendant appellant in this court on two grounds. In the first place, he urged that this point was not specifically taken in either the w