The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a clear English calendar month for the termination of tenancy under Section 6(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, and the impact of the tenancy agreement on the automatic termination of tenancy.

JUDGMENT :

1. The landlord plaintiff is the appellant before this court challenging the judgment and decree passed in Ejectment Appeal No.93 of 2011.

2. The appellant as plaintiff filed Ejectment Suit No.5 of 2004 in the 1st Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Alipore, 24 Parganas South against the defendant/respondent on the ground of reasonable requirement for his own use and occupation. It is pleaded by the plaintiff/appellant that tenancy of the defendant/respondent was terminated with the expiry of September, 2003 by a valid notice dated 27th August, 2003 issued on behalf of the plaintiff by his learned Advocate. The said notice was duly served upon the defendant/respondent but he failed and neglected to quit, vacate and deliver up peaceful possession of the suit premises in terms of the notice which compelled the plaintiff to file the suit for eviction.

3. The defendant/respondent contested the suit by filing written statement wherein he denied the claim of the plaintiff for his eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement. He also challenged validity, legality and sufficiency of the notice dated 27th August, 2003 as well as the service thereof. According to the defendant, tenancy was not determined by the said notice and the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for eviction on the basis of termination of tenancy by the said notice.

4. The learned trial judge on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed as many as seven issues and decided the issues on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties during trial and ultimately decreed the suit on contest with cost.

5. The defendant/respondent assailed the said judgment and decree passed by the learned trial judge in appeal which was registered as Ejectment Suit No.93 of 2011. The said appeal came up for hearing on 25th February, 2013 before the learned Additional District Judge, 13th Court at Alipore. The learned Judge in 1st Appellate Court held that the notice (Exhibit-5) was invalid, inoperative and insufficient. Tenancy was not lawfully terminated by virtue of the said notice which was defective because of the fact that the tenancy of the defendant was a monthly tenancy determinable after the expiry of a clear English calendar month, but the impugned notice did not contemplate termination of tenancy after the expiry of English calendar month. So, it was held by the learned Additional District Judge, 13th Court at Alipore that the notice was bad. Accordingly he allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the leaned trial judge.

6. The instant appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellant was admitted for hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 17th May 2013. The appeal is directed to be heard on the following substantial questions of law:-

"1. Whether the learned judge in the lower appellate court, substantially, erred in law in holding that the tenancy in question has not been legally terminated by giving one month's notice starting from first date to the last date of the month inasmuch as the respondent received the notice being exhibit 6 on September 11, 2003 and the suit has been instituted on May 19, 2004, the purpose of the provision relating to one month's notice prior to institution of suit, has been complied with?

2. Whether the learned judge in the lower appellate court, substantially, erred in law by not holding that though the notice was received on September 11, 2003, but it was issued on August 27, 2003 and suit has been filed in the year 2004 and since substantial compliance of section 6(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 has been made, the suit could not have been dismissed on the ground that the notice was bad?"

7. Mr. Jiban Ratan Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submits at the outset that Ejectment Appeal No.93 of 2011 was dismissed on the ground of insufficiency of notice. It was also held that tenancy