TMI Blog1968 (5) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lt in payment of rent; (2) on the ground of the landlord's reasonable requirement of the disputed holding for development purposes; and (3) on the ground that the tenant petitioner was guilty of unlawful subletting and failure to occupy the major portion of the same. 3. The landlord's case was that the petitioner's tenancy had been duly determined by an appropriate notice of ejectment, which had been duly served upon the petitioner, and that, because of the above grounds, the petitioner had forfeited its claim of protection under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act. 4. The landlord's claim was opposed and objected to by the petitioner, who contended inter alia that its tenancy, if any, under the opposite party w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the notice, given in the instant case, complied with the provision of one month's notice but did not comply with a six months' notice, as found by the learned Lower Appellate Tribunal. That tribunal, also, appears to be of the view that the tenancy in this case was for a manufacturing purpose. That view seems to be correct on the facts before us. But the lower appellate tribunal was of the opinion that, having regard to the provisions of Section 4 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, one month's notice would be enough even for a manufacturing tenancy, which was governed by the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act; in other words, the learned lower appellate tribunal was of the opinion that the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, while providing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, also, would have to be complied with. The position, then, is that, where the Transfer of Property Act requires the notice for a lesser period, the longer period under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act would ultimately prevail or govern, and, where the Transfer of Property Act prescribes the longer period for the relevant notice, the lesser period under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act would be of no consequence; or, in other words, in the instant case, a six months' notice was necessary for terminating the petitioner's tenancy and, admittedly, such a notice has not been given. 9. Moreover, the notice of ejectment, on the opposite party's own case, was served by three processes: (i) by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peon was written at the bottom of the page, while the entry of delivery to the said peon is to be found in the middle. This feature ought to have attracted the attention of the tribunals below but it does not appear to have been considered by them at all. It also appears that there was no attempt to find out the petitioner's representatives or agents before affixing the notice, as aforesaid. In such circumstances, the alleged personal service cannot be accepted as good service in law. 12. In the context of the postal peon's report, again, that the addressee was not to be found at the address, strengthened by the report of the peon, who was alleged to have effected the personal service, as aforesaid, to the same effect, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discharged. If the above deposit is made, as directed herein, this Rule will be made absolute and the opposite party's present proceeding for eviction will stand dismissed on the ground of defective notice of ejectment and/or defective service of such notice. 16. The above deposit, if made, will be withdrawable by the opposite party without furnishing any security therefor and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties under the law. Such withdrawal, however, will be subject to adjustment according to law as against the legal claims of the opposite party against the petitioner on account of the disputed tenancy, at the instance of either party. 17. There will be no order for costs in this Rule. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
