1972 (7) TMI 112 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of Notice under Section 13(6) confirmed, Division Bench's authority upheld

Prafulla Kumar Dutta Versus Ganesh Chandra Bose and Ors.

The Full Bench affirmed the validity and sufficiency of the notice under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, stating that it is ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity and sufficiency of the notice under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.2. Authority of one Division Bench to hold that another Division Bench did not correctly state the law or the effect of a prior Special Bench decision.3. Whether the learned Judges in AIR 1968 Cal 186 had authority to override the Bench decision in ILR 1966 2 Cal 1.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity and Sufficiency of the Notice under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956:The plaintiffs filed an ejectment suit for recovery of possession of premises No. 43, Serpentine Lane, Calcutta, claiming they needed the premises for their own occupation and that the defendant had defaulted in rent payments. The trial court held that the notice served to the defendant was valid and sufficient, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendant appealed, arguing that the notice was insufficient and did not determine the tenancy. The Division Bench referred to the Special Bench decision in AIR 1964 Cal 1, which stated that it is not necessary to mention the grounds of ejectment in the notice under Section 13(6). The Full Bench reaffirmed this, noting that the majority of the Special Bench had unequivocally held that such grounds need not be stated in the notice.2. Authority of One Division Bench to Hold That Another Division Bench Did Not Correctly State the Law or the Effect of a Prior Special Bench Decision:The Division Bench in ILR 1966 2 Cal 1 interpreted the Special Bench decision in AIR 1964 Cal 1, suggesting that grounds of ejectment need not be stated only when the tenant is aware of the grounds from other circumstances. The Full Bench clarified that a Division Bench cannot reinterpret clear and unequivocal findings of a Special Bench. The Special Bench decision in AIR 1964 Cal 1 was binding, and the Division Bench in ILR 1966 2 Cal 1 had no authority to reinterpret it. Thus, the Full Bench held that one Division Bench does not have the authority to hold that another Division Bench did not correctly state the law or the effect of a prior Special Bench decision.3. Whether the Learned Judges in AIR 1968 Cal 186 Had Authority to Override the Bench Decision in ILR 1966 2 Cal 1:The Full Bench noted that the decision in ILR 1966 2 Cal 1 was contrary to the clear and unequivocal pronouncement of the Special Bench in AIR 1964 Cal 1. Therefore, the learned Judges in AIR 1968 Cal 186 were correct and bound to follow the Special Bench decision, effectively overriding the decision in ILR 1966 2 Cal 1. The Full Bench concluded that the Division Bench in AIR 1968 Cal 186 had the authority to hold that the decision in ILR 1966 2 Cal 1 was incorrect regarding the contents of the notice under Section 13(6).Conclusion:The Full Bench answered the questions referred to it, affirming the binding nature of the Special Bench decision in AIR 1964 Cal 1, which did not require the grounds of ejectment to be stated in the notice under Section 13(6). They clarified that one Division Bench cannot reinterpret a clear Special Bench decision and that the Division Bench in AIR 1968 Cal 186 had the authority to follow the Special Bench decision over the contrary interpretation in ILR 1966 2 Cal 1. The case was to be placed before the appropriate Division Bench for final disposal, with costs to abide by the result of the appeal.