MOHAMMED YUSUF Vs. RAM CHANDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the tenant and it arises out of a suit for ejectment the suit was brought on February 8, 1957. It is, admittedly, governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and the grounds, taken under that Act, were (i) requisite defaults in payment of rent, (ii) unlawful subletting and (iii) damages to the disputed property. In the course of the suit, there was a proceeding under Sec. 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 for striking out the defence against ejectment. That proceeding ended in favour of the landlord after the matter had been taken up to this Court in Civil Rule No. 3508 of 1957 and the tenant's defence against ejectment was struck out. Thereafter, it appears on the date of hearing, the tenant filed his hazira but, possibly, he did not take any further steps with the result that the matter was heard exparte and, on the exparte evidence of the plaintiffs, the learned trial Judge decreed the plaintiffs' suit. From this decree, the present appeal has been preferred by the tenant defendant. In support of the appeal, Mr. Sinha urged first that the notice of ejectment (Ext. 1) is defective in law as it is not a notice of suit as required under sec. 13 (6) of the above Act. On a reading of the said notice, however, we are unable to uphold Mr. Sinha's contention. The last paragraph of the said notice apprises the tenant as follows :

(2.) IT is abundantly clear from this passage that the legal proceedings contemplated, therein, in the context of what precedes the threatened adoption o3 such legal proceedings and also what fallows, cannot be anything else than a suit for eviction. The demand was for delivery of possession and the legal proceedings, as threatened, were to be in default of compliance with the said demand. The legal proceedings contemplated involved, again, a claim for costs and damages which obviously excluded criminal proceedings, if any such procedings would have been otherwise relevant or available, with the result that, by necessary implication, a suit for eviction was contemplated by the landlords or, in other words, that there was the necessary threat of suit for eviction, as required under sec. 13 (6) of the above Act. We accordingly, overruled the submission of Mr. Sinha on the point of alleged defects in the notice of ejectment.

(3.) MR. Sinha then urges that, on the materials before the Court, the finding on the question of service of this notice on the appellant ought to have been in the negative. The notice appears to have been served by registered post and the acknowledgment or acknowledgments have all come back, though two of them are signed by one Abdul Latif on behalf of the appellant and the third purports to bear the signature of the appellant himself.