SHIBANI BASU versus SANDIP RAY

Citation: [2010] 14 S.C.R. 932 · Decided: 26-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 932 
SHIBANI BASU 
V. 
SANDIP RAY 
(Civil Appeal No. 10053 of 2010) 
NOVEMBER 26, 2010 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] 
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act - s. 13(6) - Notice 
for termination of tenancy -
Validity of - Eviction suit -
C Decreed by trial court - First appellate court, however, set 
aside the decree holding that the notice of termination of 
tenancy was not valid as it did not end with the month of 
tenancy - High Court affirmed the decree of trial court -
Respondent-tenant filed SLP - Matter remitted back to High 
D Court to consider the validity of the notice of termination of 
tenancy having regard to the fact that the rent note I 
agreement of tenancy was unregistered - 1High Court affirmed 
the order of first appellate court holding that the notice of 
termination of tenancy.fell short of the requirement stipulated 
E by s. 13(6) of the Tenancy Act - On appeal, held: Non-
registration of the rent note !agreement of tenancy was 
rendered insignificant in view of the pleadings of the parties 
on the question of month of tenancy - The defendant did not 
question the facts material to the creation of the tenancy -
F Specific averment in the plaint to the effect that the rent for 
the premises was payable monthly according to the English 
Calendar was overlooked by the first appellate court - The 
ejectment notice having been served on 15th January, 2000, 
the defendant-tenant had one month's clear time till the end 
of February, 2000 to vacate the premises and to deliver the 
G possession thereof to the plaintiff - The first appellate court 
wrongfully held that since the tenancy in the instant case had 
started on the 11th day of the English Calendar month, in 
order to be legally valid, the notice of termination ought to 
H 
932 
SHIBANI BASU v. SANDIP RAY 
933 
have demanded delivery of possession by the 11th and not 
the end of February, 2000 - Even if the unregistered rent note 
I agreement of tenancy was executed on a date other than the 
first of English or any other calendar month, the parties were 
always free to agree that the month of tenancy would 
commence from any other date including the 1st day of the 
succeeding month - Decree passed by trial court restored -
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - s.106. 
A 
B 
The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for eviction and 
recovery of possession and mesne profits against the 
respondent. The plaintiff claimed that the suit property C 
was let out to the respondent on month to month basis. 
The tenancy was, according to the plaintiff, for a period 
of five years only and was determined in terms of a notice 
issued under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises 
Tenancy Act and Section 106 of the Transfer of Property 
D 
Act. The trial court decreed the suit. 
Aggrieved, the tenant appealed to tlYe first appellate 
court, which set aside decree passed by the trial court. 
On second appeal, the High Court set aside the order 
E 
passed by the first appellate court and affirmed the 
judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The 
respondent-tenant preferred civil appeal by way of 
special leave petition which was allowed by this Court 
and the matter remitted back to the High Court to consider 
F 
the validity of the notice of termination having regard to 
the fact that the agreement of tenancy executed between 
the.parties was an unregistered document. The High 
Court, pursuant to the said order, examined the effect of 
the unregistered document and held that the same could 
G 
be used in evidence for a collateral purpose and, when 
so used, the notice of termination of tenancy issued on 
behalf of t_he landlady fell short of the requirement 
stipulated by Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises 
Tenancy Act. The High Court accordingly dismissed the 
H 
/ 
934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A appeal and affirmed the dismissal of the suit by the First 
Appellate Court. The appellant filed the instant appeal 
assailing the correctness of the said judgment and order 
of the High Court. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. The question regarding validity of the notice 
of termination can be examined by reference to the 
averments made in the pleadings of the parties. It is 
evident from a plain reading of the assertions in the plaint 
C and the written statement that the defendant did not 
question the facts material to the creation of the tenancy 
nor was it disputed that the tenancy wa

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