1. An admission of tenancy, if true and clear, is by far the best proof of the facts admitted and can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. 2. A postal endorsement "refused" may amount to good service in the absence of any specific averment in the written statement that there was no tender of the notice to the defendant/tenant and in view of the evidence that the endorsement was preceded by several dates of visit of the house of the defendant/tenant by postal peon.

Tarun Kumar Gupta, J.:-

This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 20th April, 2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Alipore in Title Appeal No.117 of 2004 affirming the judgment and decree of eviction dated 29th of June, 2004 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 5th Court at Alipore in Title Suit No.59 of 1990.

2. The respondents’ predecessor-in-interest viz Satkari Mondal as plaintiff filed said suit for eviction alleging that he was absolute owner of suit premises No.38 Upen Banerjee Road and the defendant was a monthly tenant under him at a rental of Rs.100/- per month payable according to English calendar month. Plaintiff filed said suit for eviction on the ground of default and reasonable requirement after sending a notice to quit dated 13th December, 1989 under registered post with A/D which returned with postal endorsement “refused”. During pendency of the suit original plaintiff Satkari Mondal died and present respondents were substituted in his place as heirs and legal representatives. An amendment petition was filed in 2003 to change the address of suit building as well as suit premises owned by original plaintiff from 38 Upen Banerjee Road to 38 A Upen Banerjee Road on the ground of renumbering of the same by Calcutta Municipal Corporation.

3. The appellant/defendant/tenant contested said suit by filing written statement followed by additional written statement denying material allegations of the plaint and amended plaint and contending inter alia that premises No.38 Upen Banerjee Road was not renumbered as 38 A Upen Banerjee Road and that alleged notice dated 13th of December, 1989 was not legal, valid and was not also received by the defendant and plaintiffs did not reasonably require suit premises.

4. After contested hearing learned Trial Court found the notice to quit legal and valid and was of the opinion that postal endorsement “refused” amounted to good service in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned Trial Court decreed the suit for ejectment on the ground of reasonable requirement of the same by the plaintiffs and their family members for their own use and occupation but granted protection against eviction on the ground of default for compliance of relevant provisions of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

5. Being aggrieved appellant/tenant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No.117 of 2004 but the same was dismissed on contest.

6. At the time of admission of this second appeal the following substantial questions of law were framed:-

(a) Whether both the learned Courts below committed substantial error of law in holding that the premises No.38 and 38 A Upen Banerjee Road are the same and identical premises even after coming to conclusion that the premises No.38, Upen Banerjee Road has been partitioned and a portion has been renumbered.

(b) Whether both the learned Courts below committed substantial error of law in coming to the conclusion that the notice of ejectment has been properly served by the plaintiff / respondents.

(c) Whether both the Courts below committed error of law by holding that the suit premises is required by the plaintiffs for their own use and occupation and they have no other alternative suitable and reasonable accommodation elsewhere.

7. Mr. Ayan Banerjee, learned advocate for the appellant, has submitted that the suit was filed describing the address of the suit premises as 38 Upen Banerjee Road but during pendency of the suit the plaint was amended to change the premises number of the suit premises from 38 to 38 A Upen Banerjee Road. According to Mr. Banerjee it came out during evidence that premises No.38 Upen Banerjee Road and 38 A Upen Banerjee Road are two distinct premises and that one Bishaka Mondal was the owner of premises No.38 whereas plaintiffs’ predecessor-in-interest Satkari Mondal was owner of 38 A Upen Banerjee Road and that the report of learne