LexDIPAK KUMAR GHOSH versus MIRA SEN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A DIPAK KUMAR GHOSH v. .. MIRA SEN ~' JANUARY 22, 1987 13 [RANGANATH MISRA AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.] West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956: s.13(/)(j)-Grounds of ~ eviction-Tenant's notice to quit-Expression 'We shall vacate the pre- mises within next 6/8 months' used-Notice whether vague and uncertain-Whether falls under s.106 of the Transfer of Property Act- /l, c Tenant whether estopped from challenging it. Clause (j) of s.13(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 empowers the court to order recovery of possession of any pre- 't mises in favour of the landlord where the tenant has given notice to quit but has failed to deliver possession in accordance with such notice. [) The appellant-tenant while remitting monthly rent by postal money order stated in the coupon that they shall vacate the premises within the next 6/8 months. This was taken note of by the respondent- landlord in his subsequent letter. When the tenant failed to deliver vacant possession of the premises the respondent flied a suit for eject- E ment under s.13(1)(j), which was contested by the tenant contending that "' it was never intended by him to vacate the premises and that the said statement in the money order coupon was not made by him but by his brother without any authority from him. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the statement in the r money order was neither written by the appellant nor by his authorised agent and accordingly it did not amount to a notice to quit within the l provision of s.13(1)(j) of the Act. The lower appellate court affirmed the finding of the trial court, but held that the said statement in the money order coupon was made by the brother of the appellant under his specific instruction. G Respondent's second appeal was allowed by the High Court, which took the view that the statement in the money order coupon constituted a valid notice to quit within the meaning of s.13(1)(.j). In this appeal by special leave it was contended for the appellant 1 H that the notice to quit was vague and uncertain and as it did not comply l 1108 • ·' l I .!-\ ~ _4 D.K. GHOSH v. MIRA SEN 1109 with the provisions of s. I 06 of the Transfer of Property Act it was defec- tive and could not be treated as a notice to quit within the meaning of cl.(j) ofs.13(1) of the Act. A Dismissing the appeal, the Court, B HELD: I. The High Court was justified in decreeing the suit for eviction on the gr~und contained in clause (j) of section 13(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. That clause reserves an option to the tenant to relinquish the protection.under the Act by giving a notice to quit. On failure of the tenant to vacate the premises in accordance with the notice to quit, the landlord would be entitled to a decree for ejectment.[1114G; 1112C-D) c 2. The notice to quit must not be vague and uncertain. There must be a clear indication in it of the tenant's intention to vacate the premises. Such an intention will be apparent when it is stated in the notice to quit that the tenant will vacate on a particular date or after a certain period of time. When the tenant says that he will vacate by a D ·certain date that will simply mean that he would vacate on or before that date. [1112D; 11138-C] In the instant case, the notice to quit could not be said to be vague and uncertain. Though it did not specifically mention the date when the appellant would vecate the premises, it was apparent from the state- E ment "we shall vacate the premises within the next 6/8 months" that the appellant's stay in the premises would not be beyond eight months. It contains a clear intention to vacate the premises positively after the expiry of eight months from the date of the notice. [1113C) Joseph v. Joseph, (1967) CH 78 and Matthewson v. Wrightman, F 170 E.R. 622, referred to. 3. The respondent had by his letter dated April 9, 1969 enquired of the appellant as to the date on which the appellant would vacate the premises so as to enable the respondent to arrange bis occupation of the premises accordingly. If the respondent had not accepted the notice to G quit, there was no necessity for him to enquire of the appellant as to the precise date of his vacating the premises. The notice having thus been accepted by the respondent, the appellant was precluded from challeng- ing the validity thereof. [11I4E-G] 4.1 A notice to quit even if it is defective can he acc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.