HARI DAS TANTI Vs. UPENDRA NARAIN SHAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this suit for ejectment, the defendant set up two defences; first, that the notice served upon him to quit was not sufficient and, secondly, that he has a permanent maurasi right to the tanks which were the subject-matter of this litigation.

(2.) The Munsif dismissed the suit upholding both the contentions of the defendant; but the Subordinate Judge on appeal has reversed the Munsif s decision, and the defendant therefore, appeals to this Court.

(3.) The sufficiency of the notice given to the defendant was challenged on the ground that six months according to the British Calendar did not intervene between the date of the notice and the end of the year when he was required to give up possession and the question that arises is whether the six months should be calculated according to the Bengalee or according to the British Calendar. The tenancy commenced before the Transfer of Property Act came into operation and Section 106 of that Act does not apply and we, therefore, have to decide the case according to the principles of, equity, justice and good conscience. It seems to us that where the tenancy is Where a tenancy is regulated by the Bengalee year, it would be inequitable to the parties to compel them to take notice of the British Calendar as that by which a notice to quit should be regulated, Six months notice according to the Bengalee Calendar would be sufficient