A notice of eviction under section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act must expire with the end of the month of tenancy, and a notice to vacate with the expiry of the 14th of a month is invalid.

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. : This first appeal is at the instance of a tenant/defendant in a suit for eviction on the grounds of default in payment of rent, reasonable requirement and also on the ground of annoyance and nuisance alleged to have been created by the appellant and is directed against the judgment and decree dated November 23, 1991 passed by the learned Judge, 2nd Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 98 of 1978 thereby passing a decree for eviction in favour of the respondents.

2. The aforesaid suit was contested by the appellant by filing written statement thereby denying the material allegations made in the plaint.

3. So far the ground of default is concerned, the appellant by complying with the provision contained in section 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act ("Act") got protection under section 17(4) thereof.

4. Ultimately, the learned trial Judge passed the said decree only on the ground of reasonable requirement.

5. Being dissatisfied, the tenant/defendant has preferred the instant first appeal.

6. During the pendency of the instant appeal, the respondents filed an application for amendment of plaint thereby incorporating certain subsequent events for the purpose of showing that the requirement of the respondents have further enhanced.

7. The appellant has also filed additional written statement controverting the aforesaid fact.

8. At the time of hearing of the instant appeal before entering into the question of reasonable requirement, Mr. Banerjee, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of a valid notice under section 13(6) of the Act.

9. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention of Mr. Banerjee, the following facts are relevant.

10. As it appears from Exhibit 'A', the letter of agreement of tenancy dated September 24, 1968, it was agreed between the parties that the tenancy would commence with effect from October 15, 1968 and that the rent for the odd days of October, 1968 would be paid in advance simultaneously with the signing of the said agreement. It was further provided, that thereafter the tenancy would run according to English calendar month and aforesaid monthly rent will become due and payable in advance by the 7th day of each and every current month. In paragraph 1 of the plaint, the respondents specifically stated that the appellant was a tenant at a rental of Rs. 300/- per month payable according to English calendar and the said tenancy commenced with effect from October 15, 1968 on the condition mentioned in the defendant's letter dated September 24, 1968, thus admitting the contents of the said letter. There is no dispute that the notice under section 13(6) of the Act was given on December 1, 1977 terminating the tenancy of the defendant and also directing him to quit, vacate and deliver vacant and peaceful possession with the expiry of 14th day of January, 1978.

11. By relying upon the aforesaid materials on record, Mr. Banerjee contends that the tenancy of his client was according to English calendar and as such the suit filed on the basis of an eviction notice under section 13(6) of the Act with the expiry of 14th day of January, 1978 was not in accordance with section 13(6) of the Act and the suit is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.

12. Mr. Roychowdhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has on the other hand supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge and has contended that although in view of an agreement between the parties, rent was' payable according to English calendar month but the tenancy having commenced admittedly on October 15, 1968, the said tenancy cannot be according to English calendar. In this connection Mr. Roychowdhury relies upon the provision contained in section 110 of the Transfer of Property Act.

13. Mr. Roychowdhury further by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhag