BANKA PROSAD Vs. UKHRA FOREST AND FISHERIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three second appeals arise out of three suits for eviction and the plaintiff and the defendant are common in all the cases. The courts below found in each case that the defendant was a tenant of the disputed structures under the plaintiff, that the tenancy had been lawfully determined by a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and decreed the suits on these findings. The only point raised by Mr. Ganguly appearing for the defendant-appellant in these appeals is that the landlord not having given to the tenant a notice under Section 13 (6) of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act, 1956, the suits were incompetent and the courts below erred in not dismissing them on this ground. On behalf of the respondent mr. Burman's answer to this argument is that the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act did not extend to the city of durgapur where the disputed premises are situate. Admittedly, no notice as contemplated in Section 13 (6) of the aforesaid Act was served and there can be no dispute that in the absence of such a notice the suits for eviction would not be maintainable if the Act was in operation in the locality in question. Thus the only point arising for decision in these appeals is whether or not the said Act was in operation In the area where the premises in dispute are situate when the suits were filed on september 1, 1962.

(2.) SECTION 1 (3) of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act defines its extent, the relevant part of which is as follows :-

(3.) THUS, outside the city of Calcutta the operation of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act is confined to areas constituted municipalities under the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 and to other areas where it has been extended by notification either in whole or in part. It is not claimed that the Act or any part of it has been extended to durgapur area by notification issued under Section 1 (3) of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act. The main plank of Mr. Ganguly's argument is the definition of "municipality" given in section 3 (34) of the Bengal Municipal act as meaning any place in which the said Act, or any part thereof, is in force, the admitted position being that some of the provisions of the Bengal Municipal Act have been made applicable to durgapur which is a notified area within the meaning of Section 93a of the said Act. Mr. Ganguly's contention is that Durgapur being thus a municipality, the provisions of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act apply to this area by virtue of Section 1 (3) thereof.