RANJU@ GAUTAM GHOSH versus REKHA GHOSH & ORS.

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 763 · Decided: 14-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

RANJU@ GAUTAM GHOSH 
A 
v. 
REKHA GHOSH & ORS. 
DECEMBER 14, 2007 
[R.V. RA VEENDRAN AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
B 
Rent Control & Eviction: 
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956; S 13(1)(e), (6)/Transfer C 
of Property Act, 1882; S.108/West Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899; 
S.28: 
Eviction Petition for recovery of possession and mesne profit-
Notice to tenants-Requirements of-Tenant causing damage to 
collapsible gate and putting additional construction-Violation of D 
Clauses (m), (o) and (p) of S.108 of Transfer of Property Act-
Eviction on grounds of nuisance and annoyance-Held: Sub-section 
6 of S.13 of 1956 Act makes it obligatory on the part of Landlord to 
issue one month's Notice to tenants to quit-No provision under 1956 
Act mandates service of Notice by registered post-Therefore, a tenant E 
cannot claim that the Notice should be served by registered post- On 
the basis of evidence and in terms of the provisions, first appellate 
Court and also High Court rightly held that a valid Notice to quit was 
duly served by landlord to tenant-First appellate Court, based on 
oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the F 
collapsible gate had been cut and replaced by the tenant without the 
permission of the landlord-Tenant also threatened the landlord and 
his son to kill them and abusing in filthy language-These acts of 
tenant would amount to nuisance and annoyance-The factual 
conclusion so arrived at by the first appellate Court directing the G 
decree of eviction against the tenant as affirmed by High Court, 
cannot be ignored in the absence of any contra evidence in terms of 
provisions u/Ss.13 (I) (b) & (e) of 19 5 6 Act-Appellant-tenants directed 
to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to landlords. 
763 
H 
764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. 
A 
The predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos. 1-6, owner of 
., 
the premises in dispute, instituted a suit against the predecessor-
.. 
in-interest of the appellant-tenant for recovery of possession and 
mesne profit in respect of the premises in question. The suit was 
dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved, the landlord filed an appeal 
B before the first appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal 
the original tenant passed away and his L.Rs were brought on record. 
The appeal was allowed with cost and the respondents were directed 
to give the vacant possession of the suit premises and also granted 
a decree for mesne profit. The tenants preferred a second appeal 
c before the High Court. High Court dismissed the appeal and 
confirmed the order of the first appellate Court. Hence the present 
appeal. 
The questions which arose for consideration in this appeal were 
as to whether notice to quit was legal, valid and sufficient; as to 
D whether the tenant did any act which violated clauses (m), (o) and 
(p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; and as to 
. , 
whether the tenant was guilty of causing act of nuisance and 
) 
annoyance. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1.1. The language used in sub-section 6 of Section 13 
of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act makes it clear that it is 
obligation on the part of the landlord to issue one month's notice 
expiring with the month of the tenancy to the tenant. 
F 
[Para 9] [770-D] 
-.. 
1.2. Neither sub-section 6 of Section 13 nor any other provision 
of the Tenancy Act mandates that notice "to be served by registered 
post". [Para 9) [770-G] 
1.3. The Provision u/s. 28 of the Bengal General Clauses Act, 
G 1899 makes it clear that after the commencement of the said Act 
any document to be served by post, the service shall be by mentioning 
proper address, prepaying and posting by registered post a letter 
'I 
" 
containing the document. In the present case, clause 6 of the 
agreement provides mere "one month notice", in such event, the said · 
H notice can be served in any manner and it cannot be claimed that 
RAN JU @GAUT AM GHOSH v. REKHA GHOSH 
765 
r 
.. 
the same should be served only by registered post with A 
acknowledgement due. [Para 10] (771-C] 
1.4. Considering the materials available on record, the lower 
( 
appellate Court found that notice was duly served on the tenant and 
-
be was very well aware about the contents of the notice. On going 
B 
through the evidence placed before this Court and the relevant 
provisions, the conclusion of the first appellate Court, as affirmed 
by the High Court, that there was valid no
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.