PHANI BHUSHAN ROY Vs. LAKSHMIMONI DEVI
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
PHANI BHUSHAN ROY
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This appeal is under Clause 15 of the Letters patent. It is directed against a decision of our learned brother, Chatterjee, J. (as he then was) and it arises out of a suit for eviction against a non-agricultural tenant. The suit succeeded in the first two Courts but, in second appeal, our learned brother, Chatterjee, J. dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that either the relevant notice of ejectment was insufficient or the suit was premature.
(2.) In our view, the decision of Chatterjee, J. is right and has to be affirmed.
(3.) It is clear, on the plaintiff's own case, that the disputed tenancy commenced from the month of Magh, 1349 B.S. The notice that was given was a notice, given in Bhadra, 1357 B.S. asking the tenant to vacate "either with the expiry of the end of the month of Chaitra, 1357 B.S., or, at the end of the year of tenancy, which will expire next after the end of one-half year from the date of the service of this notice," The notice, therefore, was to terminate either with the end of Chaitra, 1357 B.S. or with the end of Pous, 1358 B.S., the commencement of the tenancy having been the month of Magh of a Bengali calendar year according to either party's case. If the former be taken to be the date of expiry, the notice would obviously, be insufficient as it would not be expiring with the end of a year of the tenancy. If the latter date of expiry of the notice be taken, the instant suit would be premature, as it was instituted some time in Sravan, 1358 B.S. In this view, Chatterjee, J. must be held to have rightly dismissed the plaintiff's suit.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.