MRITUNJOY SETT (D) BY LRS. versus JADUNATH BASAK (D) BY LRS

Citation: [2011] 5 S.C.R. 884 · Decided: 26-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011) 5 S.C.R. 884 
MRITUNJOY SETT (D) BY LRS. 
v. 
JADUNATH BASAK (D) BY LRS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3617 of 2011) 
APRIL 26, 2011 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.) 
WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT 1956: 
c 
s. 13(6j - Suit for eviction on ground of bona fide 
requirement - Notice -
Tenant resisting the suit as not 
maintainable, as one month's clear notice according to 
Bengali Calendar was not given - Landlord claiming tenancy 
as per English Calendar -
Trial court dismissed the suit 
0 holding that one month's clear time was not given to the tenant 
- First appellate court decreed the suit - High Court allowed 
the second appeal of the tenant - Held: There has been 
compliance of s. 13(6) and once tenant's tenancy was 
determined, on his failure in compliance thereof, suit was 
E maintainable and rightly decreed by first appellate court -
Ground of bona fide requirement had already been held by 
trial court in favour of landlord - Judgment of High Court 
cannot be sustained and is set aside - Evidence Act, 1872 -
ss. 17, 21 and 32 (2) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 100. 
F 
EVIDENCE ACT, 1872: 
ss. 17,21 and 32(2) - 'Admission' - Suit for eviction of 
tenant - Tenant, on the basis of rent receipts claiming that 
notice for ejectment was bad as one month's clear notice 
G according to Bengali Calendar was not given - Landlord on 
basis of lease deed claiming tenancy according to English 
Calendar - Neither of the two examining the predecessor-in-
interest of landlord either to prove the rent receipts or the 
884 
MRITUNJOY SETT (D) BY LRS. v. JADUNATH BASAK 885 
(D) BY LRS. 
/ease deed ~ Tenant admitting in another suit the tenancy as 
A 
per English Calendar ..:.. Held:' In the ciroums"fances, the 
'admission' of tenant is the best possible form of evidence -
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 - s.13(6). 
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 
B 
' .. 
s.100 - Second appeal - Scope of - Single Judge of 
High Court setting aside judgment of lower appellate court -
.Held: Single Judge failed to point out any perversity in the 
judgment of lower appellate court ""'" In the light of the 
categorical finding that no substantial question was involved 
C 
having been recorded by the Single Judge, the necessary 
consequence would have been to dismiss the tenant's second 
appeal- West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956- s.13(6). 
The appellant-landlord sent a notice to the o 
respondent-tenant as contemplated u/s 13(6) of the West 
Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, on 28.8.1991 by 
registered post AID, determining his tenancy and asking 
him to vacate the premises on or before the expiry of the 
last day of October, 1991. Though the notice was served 
E 
on the tenant, he did not vacate the premises and the 
landlord filed a suit for eviction on the ground of personal 
use and occupation. The tenant besides resisting the 
ground of reasonable requirement of the premises by the 
landlord, took the specific plea that the tenancy being in 
accordance with Bengali Calendar month, the notice was 
F 
in contravention of s. 13(6) of the Act, which provided a 
clear one month's notice for determining the tenancy. The 
trial court though found the ground of ejectment for bona 
fide need of the landlord in his favour, but dismissed the 
suit holding that the notice was not served in accordance G 
with the provisions of s. 13(6) of the Act. On appeal by 
the landlord, the first appellate court decreed the suit 
holding that the tenancy was regulated according to 
English Calendar and there was full compliance. of the 
provisions of s. 13(6) of the Act. However, the High Court H 
886 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 5 S.C.R. 
A in second appeal, set aside the judgment of the first 
appellate court. 
Allowing the appeal of the landlord, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In the light of the categorical finding - that 
B no substantial question of law was involved - having 
been recorded by the Single Judge of the High Court, the 
nec~ssary consequence would have been to dismiss the 
respondent's second appeal. [para 10] [892-A] 
c 
1.2 Even though in the impugned judgment and 
order, the Single Judge failed to point out any perversity 
in the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, 
yet wrongly placed reliance on the judgment of this Court 
in Ramlal's case* and committed a grave error of law in 
D allowing the respondent's second appeal on absolutely 
flimsy and cursory ground. [para 13] [892-E] 
*Ram/al & Anr. Vs. Phagua & A

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.