TAPAN KUMAR DUTT, J. - (1.) WHEN the appeal is called out for hearing, the learned Advocates for the respective parties submit that before proceeding with the hearing of the appeal the substantial questions of law, if any, should be formulated.
(2.) AFTER having heard the learned Advocate for the appellants, this court is of the view that this appeal should be heard on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether or not the learned Lower Appellate Court erred in not holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff- respondent was a premature one inasmuch as the said suit for eviction was filed within two years from the date of commencement of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. (2) Whether or not the learned Lower Appellate Court erred in not holding that the eviction notice being Exhibit �9 if read along with the subsequent letter being Exhibit �9(c) cannot be treated as a valid notice of suit. (3) Whether or not the learned Lower Appellate Court committed an error in making the findings in favour of the plaintiff�respondent on some grounds for eviction when the learned Trial Court had not framed proper issues in this regard. (4) Whether or not the learned Lower Appellate Court erred in decreeing the suit for eviction when there is no finding with regard to the question as to whether or not the plaintiff� respondent has any alternative suitable accommodation. After the aforesaid substantial questions of law have been formulated, the learned Advocate for the appellants has proceeded to make his submissions on the merits of the appeal. Learned Advocate for the appellants has completed his submissions. Thereafter the learned Advocate for the respondent has made and completed his submissions and thereafter the learned Advocate for the appellants has also made his submissions in reply.
(3.) HEARING is concluded. This court now proceeds to deliver the following judgement. The facts of the case very briefly is that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for eviction against the predecessor�in-interest of the present defendants/ appellants on various grounds including the ground of default in payment of rent, building and re-building, waste, negligence, annoyance having been caused to the plaintiff, unauthorized construction and the breach of the provisions of Clause (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. The suit was contested by the original defendant by filing written statement. The said suit being O.S. No. 242 of 2001 came up for hearing before the Learned Second Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd court, Midnapore and the Learned Trial Court by judgement and decree dated 17.02.2006 dismissed the said suit upon holding that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has not been able to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the notice of eviction issued on behalf of the plaintiff was not at all binding upon the defendant and it was not legal.;