Judgment :

Madhuresh Prasad, J. 

1. The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit for ejectment. The eviction was sought on the ground of reasonable requirement and on the ground of default. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant therein to deliver khas possession to the plaintiff failing which the plaintiff was granted liberty to get the decree executed through the court.

2. The tenant being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the decree preferred the instant appeal. The first appellate court namely, the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track 2nd Court, Sealdah, had allowed the appeal of the tenants setting aside the decree pronounced by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court, Sealdah. The same is the subject-matter of the present appeal at the instance of the plaintiff/landlord.

3. The brief factual matrix of the case is that the tenants were occupying an asbestos shed pucca room in the first floor with common bath and privy being the suit premises. The same was possessed by the defendants in the capacity of a tenant at a monthly rental value of Rs.199.50. It is the case of the plaintiff that the tenancy was determined on the 1^st day of August, 2004 by virtue of a notice under Section 6(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The tenancy was thus determined. Thereafter, it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants continued as a trespasser, having failed to vacate the possession in spite of notice of determination of tenancy. The plaintiff also asserted that the defendants were the defaulter of rent since September, 2003. The plaintiff further asserted that the premises in question was reasonably required by her for her own use and for the use of her family members and that she had no other alternative accommodation.

4. The defendants denied the allegation of the respondent. The defendants had specifically taken a stand in written statement that the notice to quit and vacate the suit premises was never served upon them. There being no service of notice, the requirement of Section 6(4) of the Act was not fulfilled. The suit was thus, not validly and legally instituted and no order of eviction could be passed in the suit due to non-compliance of the statutory requirement as contained in Section 6(4) of the Act.

5. Section 6(4) of the Act and the requirement contained therein is the issue based on which the first appellate court has allowed the appeal and set aside the decree of eviction. We therefore, consider it apposite to take a note of the provisions under Section 6(4) of the Act, which reads as follows:-

“ 6. Protection of tenant against eviction ….. … ….

(4) Notwithstanding anything in any other law for the time being in force, no [suit] for the recovery of possession of any premises on any of the grounds as aforesaid, except on the ground mentioned in clause (e) of sub-section (1), shall be instituted by the landlord unless he has given to the tenant one month’s notice expiring with a month of the tenancy.

…”

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that notices to quit and vacate the suit premises were twice issued upon the tenants/defendants. The quit notice and postal receipt corroborating the factum of issuance of notice upon the defendants was marked as exhibits in the suit. The first of such notice to quit and postal receipt (P.R.) was marked as exhibit 3 and 3a. The trial court, however, has relied upon the subsequent quit notice and P.R. being exhibits 8-8/a, marked as exhibits (on admission) to conclude that the notice to quit and vacate the suit premises was validly served upon the tenants/defendants as per law.

7. Thus, finding the requirement of Section 6(4) of the Act to have been complied with by the plaintiff the trial court proceeded to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff/appellant.

8. Apart from the issue regarding service of quit notice, the trial court had framed eight ot