AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This second appeal is at the instance of the tenant/defendant in a suit for eviction decreed on the ground of reasonable requirement and this appeal is preferred against a judgment of affirmance.
The respondent before us filed a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement alleging that she was in possession of two rooms in the suit property, whereas her family consists of herself, her husband, one married son having two children and one unmarried son and four daughters, of them three were married. There is no dispute that the tenant is in possession of only one room.
In view of the fact that the plaintiff was in occupation of only two rooms, whereas she required at least four bed rooms, if not more, the learned Trial Judge decreed the suit.
Being dissatisfied, the tenant/defendant preferred an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court below and by the judgment and decree impugned herein, the said Court has affirmed those passed by the learned Trial Judge.
Being dissatisfied, the tenant/defendant has come up with the present second appeal.
The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants strenuously contended before us that the learned Courts below ought to have dismissed the suit on the ground that the notice to quit was invalid. He also points out that although the tenancy is according to Bengali Calendar Month and the notice was issued asking the tenant/defendant to quit and vacate with the expiry of the month of Bhadra, it appeared from the postal endorsement that the same was refused by the appellants on 25th August, which is equivalent to 8th Bhadra.
According to the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, it is, therefore, clear that one clear month''s time was not granted to his client.
It appears from the order of the learned First Appellate Court below that the said Court in details discussed the aforesaid points pointing out that the said envelope was first tendered to the tenant/defendant on 13th August, which equivalent to 27th Shraban and thereafter, the last endorsement of refusal was on 25th August of the year.
By pointing out the aforesaid fact, it was held that after the tenant had on 13th August first refused the envelope, there was no justification of re-tendering the same and the last endorsement of refusal dated 25th August was inconsequential.
We also accept the same view taken by the learned Courts below. It is rightly pointed out that the tenant had refused the first tender on 13th August, which is equivalent to 7th Bhadra.
Therefore, the first refusal on 13th August was the real refusal on the part of the tenant and that the date should be taken to be the date for effective service of the notice to quit.
We, therefore, find that in the facts of the present case, no substantial question of law is involved and consequentially, we dismiss this appeal under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In view of dismissal of the appeal itself, the connected application has become infructuous and the same is, thus, disposed of.
Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned counsel appearing for the parties within a week from date.