SARASWATI DUTTA Vs. KRISHNARAMAN NAG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of two suits for ejectment, brought by the Plaintiff Respondent against the two Appellants, in respect of their two separate tenancies in premises No. 52/1, Beniatolla Street, Calcutta, the tenant Saraswati of First Appeal No. 165 of 1962 having her tenancy in respect of the portion in the ground floor, mentioned in the plaint of the corresponding suit, and the tenant Tarak of the other appeal, F.A. No. 166 of 1962, having his tenancy in the portion of the ground floor of the above premises, mentioned in the plaint of the suit against him. The Plaintiff claims to have terminated the two tenancies by service of appropriate notices to quit and he also claims that there was sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, which governs both the above suits. The Plaintiff further claims ejectment on the ground of reasonable requirement under Section 13(1)(f) of the aforesaid Act.

(2.) The learned trial Judge, on the evidence before him, has decreed the two suits and has given the Defendants four months' time, from the date of his decree (October 7, 1961), to vacate their respective premises.

(3.) The two appeals appear to involve different considerations. On the materials before the Court, the Plaintiff has made out a sufficient case of reasonable requirement, at least, for one more bed-room, than what he has in his occupation at present, for his family, which is fairly big, as found by the learned trial Judge and, with his said finding, we entirely agree. That will involve the ejectment of, at least, one of the two tenants provided, of course, other conditions in that behalf, as required by law, are satisfied. In the case of Saraswati, however, there is one difficulty. Although the notice, as served upon her, is quite valid and sufficient, so far as Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is concerned, the notice, so far as Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, is concerned, does not appear to be quite in order. It is true that, under the Special Bench decision, recently given in Special Bench References in F.A. No. 444 of 1961 and F.A.'s Nos. 101 and 102 of 1961, according to the majority view, the ground or grounds under Section 13 need not be stated in the notice. At the same time, the essential requirement in this respect appears to be that, at least, from something on the record, prior to the suit or the plaint, it must be found that the notice could be related to some ground under the Act. The notice, served upon Saraswati, does not mention any such ground and the ground appears only when we come to the plaint and there the ground stated was requirement for the Plaintiff's occupation or personal occupation. Prior to that, however, there is nothing on the record to connect the notice with any such ground. In the circumstances, it is difficult to hold that the notice, issued against Saraswati, complies with Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.