TMI Blog1972 (7) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t dated 22nd August, 1963 requiring the defendant to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises on the expiry of the last day of September, 1963. The defendant filed his written statement, The defendant contended that the plaintiffs should be required to prove strictly that both of them reasonably required the premises in question for their own use and occupation. The defendant further contended that the notice was illegal and insufficient and did not determine the tenancy. Issues were framed at the trial. One of the issues was Has the notice of ejectment been duly served ? Is the same valid and sufficient? Evidence was given. The learned trial Judge recorded that the learned lawyer for the plaintiff did not press the case of reasonable requirement and as such the suit was contested on the solitary question of default. The next question that was considered was the validity and sufficiency of the notice under Section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 1956. It appears that there was a notice dated 20th October. 1962 by which the defendant was asked to quit, vacate and deliver up vacant possession of the premises on the expiry of the last day of Novembe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir own occupation and as the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent for the month of November. 1962. Exhibit D was the notice dated 20th October, 1962. By the said notice the defendant was called upon to quit, vacate and deliver the possession of the portion at the back of the premises No. 43, Serpentine Lane. Calcutta, on the expiry of the last day of November, 1962. as the portion was reasonably required by the plaintiffs for their own occupation. 2. The appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court consisting of P. N. Mookerjee. J. and A. K. Dutt, J. The aforesaid Division Bench held that in disposing of the said appeal two fundamental questions arose, namely :-- (1) whether one Division Bench of this Court has authority to hold that another Division Bench did not correctly state the law or the effect of the prior Special Bench decision; (2) whether the learned Judges in 71 Cal WN 686 = (AIR 1968 Cal 1861 had authority to override, as they purported to do. the Bench decision in ILR (1966) 2 Cal 1. The Division Bench held that so far as they were concerned they had no doubt in their mind yet they adopted the above course, in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... int referred did arise in the instant case and they reiterated that finding and further recorded that the learned advocates appearing for the parties before them, namely, Mr. Chakra-borty and Mr. Lala. did agree, after full discussion in Court, that the said points did arise in this appeal. In those circumstances, the Division Bench did not feel called upon to give their reasons for the said finding nor did they feel obliged under the law to state those reasons for the purposes of this reference or for sending the matter back to the Full Bench. 3. The reference has, thereafter, come before us for disposal. At the hearing of the reference counsel for the respondent stated before us that the matter had been amicably settled between the parties and as such he was not in a position to make any submissions as to the questions referred. He further submitted that the appeal had become infructuous. 4. It appears to us that in the facts and circumstances of this case the questions referred to us for determination of the Full Bench are of academic interest for reasons more than one. Firstly, in view of the facts narrated before and in view of the fact that there is a clear find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed of by Special Bench consisting of 5 learned Judges of this Court namely, Bose. C. J., Bachawat, J., Sinha J.. P. N. Mookerjee J., and G. K. Mitter. J. Two questions were referred to the said Special Bench. It is not necessary to refer to the first question that was referred to the said Special Bench. Question No. 2 referred was in the following terms :-- What notice is contemplated under Section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 ? Is it a notice to quit or a notice of a suit or a combined notice to answer both the above purposes? Is it a notice required in addition to a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act or a notice in lieu of it? What, if any, are its necessary elements or contents ? Is it necessary to mention in it the ground or grounds of ejectment under the aforesaid Act. on which the suit is to be brought ? Or, in other words, need it be a notice of such grounds ? Bose, C. J., observed at page 983 of the report as follows :-- I now propose to consider the other material part of the second question, namely what, if any, are the necessary elements or contents of a notice under Section 13 (6) and is it necess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts or tenants under a statute, no question arises of serving a notice to quit. In other words, no determination of tenancy is necessary to obtain a right to possession. In certain circumstances however, it is possible to recover possession even from a statutory tenant. Previously no notice was necessary in such case, in order to file a suit to recover possession. Such a notice is now necessary under Section 13 (6). In such a case it is nothing but a notice of suit and the period of notice must be not less than a month expiring with the month of the notice. For such a notice however, no particular form has been prescribed and we cannot lay down any particular form. The form must be one that carries out the intent and purpose of the statute. I agree with the answer to Question No. 2 as given by my Lord the Chief Justice. P. N. Mookerjee. J., observed at page 1010 of the report as follows : (1) the notice under Section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. is a notice of suit and not a notice to quit or a combined notice, answering both the above descriptions or purposes; (2) that it is a notice required in addition to and not in lieu of noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Special Bench. came up for consideration before a Division Bench consisting of P. N. Mookerjee, J., and Laik, J. and that decision of the Division Bench is in ILR (1966) 2 Cal 1 (supra). The said Division Bench, it appears, observed that in order to appreciate principles laid down by Special Bench or Full Bench, a Court was entitled to look into the reasoning to find out the real answer intended to be given, and particularly, if the answers did not follow straight from the body of the judgment. The Court further felt, the Court had to reconcile the ambiguity if possible. The Court by a process of interpretation held that the Special Bench in AIR1964Cal1 had held that the ground or grounds of ejectment need not be given in a notice under Section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. only when from correspondence and surrounding circumstances the tenant was aware of such grounds. The Division Bench has certainly the authority to interpret the judgment of a Special Bench, if the judgment of the Special Bench on any particular question, is not clear and unambiguous. If, however, the Special Bench has clearly answered a q uestion in a particular manner and there is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pinion rightly held that the decision of the Division Bench in the case of ILR (1966) 2 Cal 1 (supra) was not correct on the question of the contents of the notice under Section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. 8. The question again came up for consideration before the Full Bench in AIR1968Cal554 Sinha. C. J., after setting out the question No. 2 which was referred to the Special Bench in AIR1964Cal1 (SB) (supra) observed at page 64 of the report, that the Special Bench had answered the second question as follows :-- A notice as contemplated under Section 13 (6) Is essentially a notice of suit. Where it was necessary to serve a notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. it is still necessary to serve it A notice under Section 13 (6) may be combined with a notice under Section 106 but the period of such combined notice shall not be less than a month expiring with the month of the tenancy. There is no prescribed form of such a notice. It is not necessary to mention in a notice under Section 13 (6) the ground or grounds of ejectment for which a suit is to be instituted for recovery of possession. There is, however, nothing to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing that one Division Bench has not the authority to hold that another Division Bench did not correctly state the law, or the effect of a prior Special Bench decision. But this statement has to be qualified by stating if a Division Bench has held contrary to the clear unambiguous finding of the Special Bench and has on the plea of interpretation of the Special Bench decision held contrary to what has been held by the Special Bench, a subsequent Division Bench, is entitled to ignore the decision of the Division Bench and rely on the clear and unequivocal pronouncement of law in any Special Bench decision. We answer the first question referred to us accordingly. 10. The second question referred to us is in the following terms :-- Whether the learned Judges in AIR1968Cal186 (supra), had authority to override as they purported to do. the Bench decision in ILR (1966) 2 Cal 1 supra). As mentioned hereinbefore we are of the opinion that the decision in ILR (1966) 2 Cal 1. was contrary to the clear pronouncement of the decision of the majority of the Judges of the Special Bench in AIR1964Cal1 on the question of the notice under Section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had no authority or jurisdiction to do. Therefore, the only course open to the Division Bench in AIR1968Cal186 was to follow the Special Bench Decision and to ignore the decision of the Division Bench in ILR (1966) 2 Cal 1 (supra). In the case of Jaisri Sahu v. Raidewan Dubey, [1962]2SCR558 , the Supreme Court observed that when a Bench of the High Court gave a decision on a question of law, it should, in general, be followed by other Benches unless they had reason to differ from it, In which case the proper course to adopt Would be to refer the question for the decision of a Full Bench. Reliance was also placed on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Alok Kumar Roy v. Dr. S. N. Sarma, [1968]1SCR813 , where the Supreme Court observed that it was necessary to emphasise that judicial decorum had to be maintained at all times and even where criticism was justified it must be in language of utmost restraint, keeping in view that the person making the comment was also fallible. Even when there was justification for criticism the language should be dignified and restrained, 12. We have answered the questions referred to us in the manner indicated before. We hope t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
