P.N.Mookerjee, J. - (1.) In April, 1937, the appellant Mrs. L.A. Saunders entered into occupation of the disputed premises No. 8, Canal Street, Calcutta, as A tenant under the respondent's -predecessor. There was no written document creating or evidencing the lease but the rental was Rs. 101/47-per month and it was payable monthly according to the English calendar.
(2.) On 15-9-1944, the respondent company (Messrs. Land Corporation of Bengal Ltd.) purchased the suit premises and the appellant's tenancy continued under them. In December 1949, the respondent company served upon the appellant a full 15 days' notice to quit requiring her to vacate the suit premises on the expiry of the said month and, on 6-2-1950, the present suit was instituted for her eviction. In the plaint there was an allegation inter alia that the plaintiff company required the suit premises bona fide for building and rebuilding purposes. That was also the allegation in the notice to quit and the bar of the Bent Control law against eviction was sought to be avoided on that ground.
(3.) The suit was resisted on various pleas, but, for my present purpose, it is necessary to mention only four defences, namely, (i) that the suit was barred by reason of the dismissal of a previous suit for ejectment (ii) that the 15 days' notice to quit was illegal, invalid and insufficient as, under the law, a six months' notice was necessary to terminate the suit tenancy (iii) that the plaintiff's case of bona fide requirement for building and rebuilding purposes was untrue and (iv) that the suit tenancy was governed by the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act and the defendant was protected by the said statute from eviction.;