The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the existence of landlord-tenant relationship, the service of eviction notices, and the grounds for eviction as prerequisites for passing a decree for eviction under Section 6(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act,1997.

JUDGMENT :

HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated August 13, 2015 passed by the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), 5th Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 22 of 2014.

2. The appellant herein filed a suit for eviction under Section 6(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act,1997 inter alia on the grounds of default, violation of clauses (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act and for building and rebuilding.

The plaint case in a nutshell runs as follows:

3. The plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and the defendant is a monthly tenant under the plaintiff at a rental of Rs. 130/- payable according to English Calendar month. By virtue of a deed of conveyance dated March 1,2007 the plaintiff acquired title in respect of the suit property. The letter of attornment which was sent by the plaintiff by speed post with acknowledgement due was not accepted by the defendant. Originally one N.Mukherjee was the tenant in respect of the suit premises. Upon his death the tenancy right devolved upon his son Swapan Mukherjee. Upon the death of Swapan Mukherjee, the defendant being his wife, became the tenant in respect of the suit property. The defendant is a defaulter in payment of rent from the month of March,2007 and is guilty of causing waste and negligence. He also violated the provisions of Clauses (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. The suit property is a dilapidated one and a notice under Section 411(1) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, was served upon the plaintiff directing him to demolish the dangerous portion of the building. As such the suit premises is required by the plaintiff for the purpose of building or rebuilding and the plaintiff has also got the plan sanctioned from the Municipal Authority. A notice to quit dated November 14,2013 was sent by the learned advocate of the plaintiff through registered post with acknowledgement due directing the defendant to quit and vacate the tenanted accommodation. The said notice returned with the postal endorsement "unclaimed". Since the defendant did not vacate the suit premises, the plaintiff was compelled to institute the instant suit.

4. The summons of the suit was sent to the defendant by registered post with acknowledgement due. The envelope containing the summons returned with the postal remark "unclaimed". The learned Trial Judge, upon being satisfied with the service of summons upon the defendant fixed the suit for ex parte hearing on December 5,2014 as the defendant did not enter appearance in the suit to contest the same.

5. In order to prove the case made out in the plaint, the plaintiff/appellant herein filed an affidavit-in-chief. Several documents were tendered by the plaintiff in his evidence which were marked as Exhibits.

6. The learned Trial Judge by a Judgment and Decree dated August 13,2015 was pleased to dismiss the said suit ex parte. The learned Judge of the court below held that no landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant in respect of the suit premises exist. The Ejectment Notice was not served upon the defendant. The ground of default and causing damage to the suit property also could not be substantiated by the plaintiff by adducing evidence.

7. The plaintiff/appellant herein challenged the aforesaid judgment and decree dismissing the suit for eviction in the instant appeal.

8. The notice of appeal was issued upon the sole respondent herein by speed post with Acknowledgement Due. An undelivered envelop with the Acknowledgement Due card came back to the concerned department of this court with the postal remark "refused". It is no longer res integra that "refusal" amounts to good service. The respondent has not entered appearence in the instant appeal to contest the same.

9. Mr. Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Judge of the court below erred in law by not holding that when a