9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appeal against decree of eviction 2. Mutual arrangement between parties 3. Sufficiency and legality of eviction notice 4. Month of the tenancy 5. Defect in the eviction notice Analysis: 1. The judgment involves an appeal by a tenant against a decree of eviction affirmed by the Subordinate Judge of Murshidabad. The plaintiffs and the defendant were each occupying the premises of the other as tenants, with the plaintiffs claiming that rents were set off. The defendant was given notice under Section 106 of the T. P. Act to vacate, leading to the eviction suit. 2. One of the points raised was regarding a mutual arrangement between the parties, contending that the eviction decree should not have been made without corresponding relief for the defendant. However, no evidence of such an arrangement was presented, and the court found no basis for equitable relief in this situation, dismissing this point. 3. The other issue raised was the sufficiency and legality of the eviction notice. The notice required the tenant to vacate within 15 days after receipt, within the Bengali calendar month. The court analyzed the notice and the implication of the month of the tenancy being the Bengali month, ultimately concluding that the notice was clear and valid. 4. A question arose regarding the month of the tenancy and whether it should be according to the English calendar month in cases under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The court rejected this notion, emphasizing that monthly tenancies can follow various calendars and start on different days of the month. 5. Finally, the court addressed the alleged defect in the eviction notice, determining that the notice was intended to require the tenant to vacate at the end of the Bengali calendar month, which was established as the month of the tenancy. The court found no issue with the notice and upheld the decision of the lower court, dismissing the appeal and granting the appellant six months to vacate the premises.
|
