A notice to quit does not require a detailed description of the tenanted premises, as the tenant is well aware of the premises in his possession. An amended plaint schedule, which includes the room numbers and the floor of the tenanted premises, is sufficient to identify the premises for the purpose of execution of an eviction decree.

Mir Dara Sheko, J.

1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, to be called on hereafter as the “appellant” preferred this appeal assailing of the judgment dated 29th April, 2015 delivered by Learned Trial Judge in Civil Suit No. 223 of 2007 filed by the respondent/plaintiff/landlord, hereafter will be called on as the “respondent”, who obtained decree of eviction of the appellant from the suit premises. The case of the respondent, in brief, is that their company has its registered office at 1 & 2, Humayan Place, Kolkata, and owns a very large property numbered as premises No. 4, BBD Bag, Kolkata and known as “Stephen House”. Now said 4, BBD Bag is known as 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata-1. By virtue of an agreement the appellant was a monthly tenant in respect of room numbers 40, 41, 42, 43 & 44 on the third floor of the said premises and the appellant thus occupied an area of about 14000 square feet. The respondent received rent of Rs. 20,079/-per month inclusive of the tenant’s contribution of Rs. 7,079/-towards municipal rates and taxes and the tenancy was governed accordingly under the Transfer of Property Act and not under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. By a notice dated 10th May, 2007 the respondent terminated the tenancy of the appellant on expiry of the month of May, 2007, but despite service of said notice the appellant did not vacate the suit premises in favour of the respondent who accordingly filed the suit no. 223 of 2007 (Dalhousie Properties Ltd. Vs. Global Exports Ltd.) praying eviction of the appellant therefrom and for other reliefs, as sought for in the plaint.

2. The appellant by filing written statements denied the averments of plaint. Asserting tenancy right between respondent and appellant in respect of room nos. 40 to 44 in the 3rd floor of suit building pursuant to agreement dated 2nd November, 1972, the appellant stated that the tenancy would be governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and not by the Transfer of property Act. It was stated that since the suit premises was situated within the limits of Kolkata Municipal Corporation, and the rent paid would not the basis of applicability of the provisions of Transfer of Property Act for eviction since such rent was paid in excess of fair rent for the suit premises. Therefore the tenancy of the respondent was not terminable by the unlawful notice of eviction as served upon the respondent under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The respondent further stated that the eviction suit is liable to be dismissed due to vagueness and lack of detailed description in respect of the suit premises in the plaint schedule.

3. In the suit on behalf of the respondent one Mr. John Mantosh was examined as the sole witness, but in turn no witness was tendered by the appellant.

4. Learned Trial Judge though observed, “there is no real defence that the defendant could possibly have. But they defended the suit on the ground that the demised part was not properly identified. Room numbers 40, 41, 42, 43 &44 were neither numbered nor demarcated. Hence, the suit be dismissed”, but Learned Judge attended the only lis as it was argued by the appellant relying on Order VII Rule 3 that in absence of a clear description of the immovable property i.e. the tenanted premises, in the plaint, the suit would fail, since any decree, if passed on unidentifiable schedule, it would be inexecutable.

5. Mr. Abhrajit Mitra learned Senior Advocate for the appellant with the same thread of Canvass argued before us that the Landlord could not establish identity of the tenanted premises and the respondent subsequently on perusal of statements of the written statements amended the schedule of the plaint to mention the room nos. 40 to 44 lying in the 3rd floor of the suit building known as Stephen House, but, according to Mr. Mitra the respondent could not establish either by sufficient pleading or evidence about the exact area of the leasehold premises. Therefore Mr