HAREKRUSHNA SAHOO Vs. BRAHMANANDA SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: -

(2.) THE appellant as plaintiff filed T.S. No.69 of 1997 for ejectment of the defendant - Brahmananda Sahoo (since deceased). During the pendency of the Second Appeal, the said original respondent - defendant having expired, his legal heirs have been substituted.

(3.) THE learned appellate Court considered the sole question with regard to validity of the notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act and referring to the said section, by taking "29.9.1972" to be the date of commencement of the tenancy came to the conclusion that the appellant was asked to vacate on the expiry of the month of March, 1997 when v another month of tenancy had already begun, as the month of tenancy actually expires by 28th. He, therefore, concluded that, to that extent the notice in question becomes invalid in law. For the above conclusion, he relied upon the decisions in the cases of Calcutta Landing and Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Victor Oil Company Ltd., AIR 1944 Calcutta 84 and Bimalendu Bhusan Das v. Firm Mitra and Ghosh, AIR 1973 Calcutta 515.