Dutt, J. - (1.) The only question that is involved in this appeal by special leave is whether the High Court was justified in decreeing the suit for ejectment on the ground under Cl. (j) of S. 13(l) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as "the Act".
(2.) One of the grounds for ejectment is that contained in Cl. (j) of S. 13(1) of the Act and reads as follows:- "S. 13(l). Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any Court in favour of the landlord against a tenant except on one or more of the following grounds, namely:- ********** (j) where the tenant has given notice to quit but has failed to deliver vacant possession of the premises to the landlord in accordance with such notice."
(3.) It appears that while remitting by postal money order the rents for the months of November and December, 1968, the appellant stated in writing in the money order coupon "we shall vacate the premises within next 6/8 months." It is not disputed before us that the said statement was made in the money order coupon by the appellant's brother under his specific instruction. After the respondent had received the said money order coupon, he by his letter dated April 19, 1969 sent to the appellant by registered post, inter alia, wrote as follows:- "I also take note of your notice to vacate the said premises within 6/8 months' time. I shall be obliged if you kindly let me know precisely the date on which you will vacate the said premises, so that I may arrange my occupation of the said premises accordingly." The said letter of the respondent was not replied to by the appellant. Thereafter, on May 11, 1970 the respondent instituted a suit for ejectment on the ground that the appellant had failed to deliver vacant possession of the premises in accordance with the said statement in the money order coupon which was treated as the notice to quit. In other words, the suit was instituted by the respondent on the ground of Cl. (j) of S. 13(l) of the Act. The appellant contested the suit. His plea was that it was never intended by him to vacate the premises in question, and that the said statement in the money order coupon was not made by him but by his brother without any authority from him in that behalf.;