Valid notice of ejectment and proved service are essential where a tenancy requires a longer statutory notice period.

A tenancy could not be validly terminated because the ejectment notice did not satisfy the longer notice period required for a manufacturing tenancy under the governing property law, and service of the notice was not proved in law. Registered post endorsement showed only that the article was left, which did not establish proper tender or effective service; personal service was also unproved because no adequate attempt was made to serve authorised representatives before affixation. The presumption arising from certificate of posting was displaced by the surrounding facts, so the ejectment proceeding could not stand on defective notice and defective service.

---

---

Issues: Whether the landlord had validly determined the tenancy by a sufficient notice of ejectment and due service thereof.

Analysis: The notice required compliance not only with the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act but also with the governing law under the Transfer of Property Act. For a manufacturing tenancy, a six months' notice was necessary, and the shorter notice given was insufficient. Service by registered post failed because the endorsement showed only that the article was left, which did not establish tender or good service. The alleged personal service was also not proved, as no proper attempt was made to serve authorised representatives before affixation, and the presumption from certificate of posting was displaced by the surrounding facts.

Conclusion: The tenancy was not validly determined, and the ejectment proceeding could not stand on the defective notice and defective service.

Final Conclusion: Relief was granted conditionally in revision, with the eviction proceeding liable to fail if the directed deposit was made, and the dismissal of the ejectment claim followed from invalid termination of tenancy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tenancy requires a longer period of notice under the general law, a shorter statutory notice will not suffice, and ejectment cannot be sustained unless valid service of the notice is proved in law.

---