IMPORTANT POINT
A valid notice under section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act must provide a full month’s notice expiring with the month of tenancy for eviction to be lawful.

JUDGMENT :

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. This Second Appeal has arisen against judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, Midnapur on 24thJuly 2002, in Other Appeal no 54 of 2000. By the impugned judgment, learned court below has set aside the judgment and decree passed in favour of plaintiff/appellant herein by civil judge (Junior Division) 1st court, Contai in Title Suit no. 277 of 1994.

2. Predecessor-in-interest of present appellant, Giridhari Pradhan as plaintiff initially filed a suit against the predecessor of present respondent Bimalendu Bera, being Title Suit. no 2 of 1984 for eviction of premises tenant only on the ground of default without serving notice under section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 (in short W.B.P.T. Act 1956). The ground taken for non-service of notice under section 13(6) in that suit was that the tenant agreed to vacate by march 1981, in terms of tenancy agreement dated 12th September 1980 and as such said recital in the agreement is to be treated as a notice under section 13(1)(k) of the W.B.P.T Act 1956. After contested hearing the Trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that suit is not maintainable in the absence of notice under section 13(6) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in aforesaid T.S 2 of 1984, the plaintiff/appellant preferred appeal being Title Appeal 51 of 1992, but the learned Appellate Court concurred with the finding of the learned Trial court and dismissed the appeal.

3. Thereafter said Giridhari being land lord again filed present eviction suit being Title Suit no 277 of 1994 on the basis of a notice dated 18.06.1994 under section 13(6) of the WBPT Act 1956 read with section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendant is a defaulter in payment of rent and has also caused material detoriation to the suit premises by using the floor of premises for his heavy loaded iron works. Plaintiff also alleged that the suit premises is reasonably required for starting a business of motor parts with his son, who was then a school student and that he has no other suitable reasonable accommodation elsewhere in Contai town. Plaintiff further pleaded that his son is growing day by day and considering present unemployment problem and also for establishing his son in a business, plaintiff is in acute need of the suit premises, for starting a shop of spare parts to be conducted by his son. Plaintiff has further alleged in the plaint that the defendant has constructed one three storied building near Udayan Cinema Hall under the name and Style Kironmoyee Engineering Works and at present he is using the suit premises as showroom and he has lathe machine and other engineering works near Udayan road. It is also stated in the plaint that the notice issued under Section 13(6) of the Act of 1956 came back with the postal endorsement “Refused” on 08th July 1994 and treating the aforesaid postal endorsement as good service, plaintiff has filed the said suit against the respondent/tenant for recovery of possession along with other reliefs

4. The defendant/tenant/respondent herein contested the suit by filing written statement denying material allegations in the plaint including the grounds taken by the plaintiff for eviction and also challenging the legality and validity of the notice issued under section 13(6) of the Act of 1956. Upon contested hearing the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff holding that the plaintiff has proved reasonableness of his requirement and the notice to quit has been duly served upon the tenant and the said notice under section 13(6) of the Act is legal and valid.

5. Being aggrieved by that judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court dated 29th February, 2000 the tenant/respondent herein preferred first appeal before the court below being aforesaid Other Appeal no. 54 of 2000. Learned court below allowed the aforesaid appeal after contested hearing by the i