TARUN KUMAR GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment and the decree dated 26 th March, 1985 passed by learned Assistant District Judge, Nadia in Title Appeal No.119 of 1974 reversing the judgment and the decree dated 22 nd May, 1974 passed by learned Munsif, Ranaghat in Title Suit No.402 of 1971.
(2.) THE respondent as plaintiff filed said suit for eviction being Title Suit No.402 of 1971 against the appellant tenant alleging that he was a tenant under the plaintiff at a rental of Rs.20 per month in respect of the suit premises according to the english calendar month and that he defaulted in payment of rent and accordingly the plaintiff terminated his tenancy by sending a notice to him. It is further case of the plaintiff landlord that in spite of service of notice the defendant did not vacate the suit premises and hence was the suit. The appellant being defendant tenant contested said suit by filing written statement denying material allegations of the plaint and contending inter alia that he was not a defaulter and that no notice was served upon him and the notice was not also legal and valid and that the suit was liable to be dismissed. Learned Trial Court framed several issues including an issue as to whether the tenant was a defaulter and another issue as to whether the notice was legal and valid and was duly served upon the defendant tenant. Learned Trial Court held the defendant tenant to be a defaulter as his defence against delivery of possession was struck off under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 for violation of Section 17(1) of said Act of 1956 by making delayed deposit of rents for two months without any satisfactory explanation. However, learned Trial Court declined to pass any decree for eviction though the notice was found to be legal and valid as the service of notice upon the defendant tenant was found not to be satisfactory.
(3.) THE appeal being Title Appeal No.119 of 1974 was initially allowed by a judgment dated 11 th of April, 1975 by holding that the endorsement of the postal peon "not claimed " amounted to good service in the facts and circumstances of the case. The defendant tenant filed a second appeal which was allowed by setting aside the judgment dated 11.04.1975 passed by learned Lower Appellate Court. The case was remanded vide judgment dated 20 th of March, 1984.;