ivil Appeal No 1160 of 1978 From the Judgment and Order dated 912
1977 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Appellate Decree No782 of 1973 SN Kacker and Sukumar Ghosh for the Appellant
Shankar Ghosh and DK Sinha and KR Nambiar for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT J
The only question that is involved in this appeal by special leave is whether the High Court was justi fied in decreeing the suit for ejectment on the ground under clause j of section 131 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 hereinafter referred to as the Act
One of the grounds for ejectment is that contained in clause j of section 131 of the act and reads as follows section 131
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any Court in favour of the landlord against a tenant except on one or more of the following grounds namely                              1111 j Where the tenant has given notice to quit but has failed to deliver vacant possession of the premises to the landlord in accordance with such notice
 It appears that while remitting by postal money order the rents for the months of November and December 1968 the appellant stated in writing in the money order coupon we shall vacate the premises within next 68 months
 It is not disputed before us that the said statement was made in the money order coupon by the appellant s brother under his specific instruction
After the respondent had received the said money order coupon he by his letter dated April 19 1969 sent to the appellant by registered post inter alia wrote as follows I also take note of your notice to vacate the said premises within 68 months  time
I shall be obliged if you kindly let me know precisely the date on which you will vacate the said premises so that I may arrange my occupation of the said premises accordingly The said letter of the respondent was not replied to by the appellant
Thereafter on May 11 1970 the respondent insti tuted a suit for ejectment on the ground that the appellant had failed to deliver vacant possession of the premises in accordance with the said statement in the money order coupon which was treated as the notice to quit
In other words the suit was instituted by the respondent on the ground of clause j of section 131 of the Act
The appellant con tested the suit
His plea was that it was never intended by him to vacate the premises in question and that the said statement in the money order coupon was not made by him but by his brother without any authority from him in that be half
The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the said statement in the money order coupon was neither written by the appellant nor by his authorised agent and accordingly it did not amount to a notice to quit within the meaning of clause j of section 131 of the Act
On appeal by the respondent the lower appellate court affirmed the finding of the trial court that the statement in the money order coupon did not constitute a notice to quit
It was however found by the lower appellate court that the said statement in the money order coupon was made by the brother of the appellant under his specific instruction
The appeal pre ferred by the respondent was consequently dismissed
1112 The respondent filed a second appeal in the High Court
The learned Single Judge of the High Court took the view that the said statement in the money order coupon constitut ed a valid notice to quit within the meaning of clause j of section 131 of the Act and as the appellant had failed to vacate the premises in accordance with the said notice to quit the respondent s suit for eviction should be decreed
In that view of the matter the learned Judge set aside the judgments and decrees of the Courts below dismissing the suit and decreed the respondent s suit for eviction
Hence this appeal by special leave
The Act provides for the protection of tenants against eviction
Under section 131 no order or decree for recov ery of possession of any premises shall be made by any Court in favour of the landlord against a tenant except on one or more of the grounds as mentioned thereunder
One of the grounds of eviction is that contained in clause j of section 131 of the Act
The tenant may relinquish the protection under the Act by giving a notice to quit
On the failure of the tenant to vacate the premises in accordance with the notice to quit the landlord would be entitled to a decree for ejectment
The notice to quit however must not be vague and uncertain
There must be a clear indication in the notice to quit of the tenant s intention to vacate the premises
It is however urged by Mr Kackar learned Counsel appearing n behalf of the appellant that the notice to quit is vague and uncertain and the suit should have been dismissed on that ground
In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon a statement in A Concise Law Dictionary by Osborn at page 224 that a notice to quit must specify the correct date or time for the termination of tenancy
The learned Counsel has also placed reliance upon a statement from Corpus Juris Vol
51 Landlord  Tenant paragraph 142 at 745 It must however be definite and unequivocal and unconditional
 COunsel submits that in the instant case the notice to quit does not mention any spe cific date or time of vacating the premises by the appel lant
Instead it suffers from uncertainty and vagueness as it states that the appellant proposes to vacate within next 68 months that is to say either within 6 months or within 8 months
Our attention has been drawn by the learned Coun sel to the letter written by the respondent enquiring of the appellant as to the date when he would vacate
It is submit ted that the respondent himself was not sure as to when the appellant would vacate the premises
It is true that the notice does not specifically mention the date 1113 when the appellant would vacate the premises but it was certain that the appellant s stay in the premises would not be beyond eight months that is to say the appellant would vacate the premises positively after the expiry of eight months from the date of the notice
All that is necessary is a clear intention to vacate and such intention will be apparent when it is stated in the notice to quit that the tenant will vacate on a particular date or after a certain period of time
A tenant may say that he will vacate by a certain date and that will simply mean that he would vacate on or before that date
Indeed in Joseph vs Joseph  the tenants agreed to give up possession by July 31
It was observed by Lord Denning MR The commonsense meaning is that the tenants were to give up possession by July 31 1960 but that if they chose to give it up by an earlier date the landlord would accept possession earlier that is just the way in which this Court construed a notice to quit on or before  a fixed date
It was construed as meaning to quit on a fixed date but gave the tenant the option of quitting earlier
 In Matthewson vs Wrightman  the notice to quit by the landlord to the tenant asked the tenant to quit possession on the 25th day of March or the 8th day of April next ensuing
It was held to be a good notice
In the instant case the notice to quit reserved to the appellant an option of vacating the premises earlier than 8 months and that is apparent from the words within next 68 months
At the same time as noticed already the statement contains a clear intention of the appellant to vacate in any event after eight months from the date of the statement
There is
therefore no substance in the contention of the appellant that the notice to quit was vague and uncertain
It is next urged by Mr Kacker that the notice to quit referred to in clause j should conform to the provisions of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act
It is sub mitted that the expression notice to quit is a well known technical expression and whenever it is used in any statute relating to landlord and tenant it would mean a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act
COunsel submits that as the notice in this case does not comply with the requirement of the provision of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act it is defective and cannot be treated as a notice to quit within the meaning of clause j of section 131 of the Act read with section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act
Clause j uses the expression notice to quit and does not lay down the particulars to be mentioned in such notice
It does not also 1114 refer to the provision of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act
There can be no doubt that if the notice to quit as mentioned in clause j
refers to a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act the present notice to quit with which we are concerned must be held to be bad
We do not think that we are called upon to consider whether a notice to quit under clause j is really a notice as contemplated by section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act
Even assuming that it is a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and accordingly the instant notice to quit is bad yet the respondent having accepted the notice to quit it will not be open to the appellant to contend that it is invalid and cannot be relied upon by the respondent as a ground for eviction
A notice to quit even if it is defective can be accepted by the landlord and after such acceptance the tenant will be estopped from challenging the validity of the notice given by him
Indeed the question came up for consideration before this Court in the Calcutta Credit Corporation Ltd  Anr vs Happy Homes P Ltd  It has been held by this Court that a notice which does not comply with the requirements of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act in that it does not expire with the end of the month of the tenancy or the end of the year of the tenancy as the case may be or of which the duration is shorter than the duration contemplated by section 106 may still be accepted by the party served with the notice and if that party accepts  and acts upon it the party serving the notice will be estopped from denying its validity
It is however urged on behalf of the appellant that the respondent had not accepted the notice to quit
This contention is also without any substance
It has been earli er noticed that the respondent by his letter dated April 9 1969 enquired of the appellant as to the date on which the appellant would vacate the premises so as to enable the respondent to arrange his occupation of the premises accord ingly
If the respondent had not accepted the notice to quit there was no necessity for him to enquire of the appellant as to the precise date of his vacating the prem ises
Thus the notice having been accepted by the respond ent the appellant is precluded from challenging the validi ty thereof
The High Court was therefore in our opinion justified in decreeing the suit for eviction on the ground as contained in clause j of section 131 of the Act
In the result the judgment and decree of the High Court is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed
There will howev er be no order as to costs
1115 The appellant is however granted time to vacate the premises till the end of April 1987 which will stand ex tended up to August 31 1987 provided the appellant files within four weeks from the date an undertaking in writing to the effect that he will vacate and deliver up vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the respondent on or before August 31 1987
The appellant shall also go on depositing in the trial court an amount calculated at the rate of rent month by month by fifteenth of the next month following that for which it is due
In default of such deposit for any two months the respondent will be at liber ty to execute the decree at once notwithstanding the time be it the initial or the extended one granted to the appel lant
The respondent will be entitled to withdraw any amount that may be deposited by the appellant in terms of this judgment without furnishing any security
PSS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
Clause i of s131 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 empowers the court to order recovery of possession of any premises in favour of the landlord where the tenant has given notice to quit but has failed to deliv er possession in accordance with such notice
The appellant tenant while remitting monthly rent by postal money order stated in the coupon that they shall vacate the premises within the next 68 months
This was taken note of by the respondent landlord in his subsequent letter
When the tenant failed to deliver vacant possession of the premises the respondent filed a suit for ejectment under s13 1 j which was contested by the tenant con tending that it was never intended by him to vacate the premises and that the said statement in the money order coupon was not made by him but by his brother without any authority from him
The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the statement in the money order was neither written by the appellant nor by his authorised agent and accordingly it did not amount to a notice to quit within the provision of s131j of the Act
The lower appellate court affirmed the finding of the trial court but held that the said statement in the money order coupon was made by the brother of the appellant under his specific instruction
Respondent s second appeal was allowed by the High Court which took the view that the statement in the money order coupon constituted a valid notice to quit within the meaning of section 13 I j
In this appeal by special leave it was contended for the appellant that the notice to quit was vague and uncertain and as it did not comply 1109 with the provisions of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act it was defective and could not be treated as a notice to quit within the meaning of clj ors131 of the Act
Dismissing the appeal the Court HELD 1
The High Court was justified in decreeing the suit for eviction on the ground contained in clause i of section 131 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956
That clause reserves an option to the tenant to relinquish the protection under the Act by giving a notice to quit
On failure of the tenant to vacate the premises in accordance with the notice to quit the landlord would be entitled to a decree for ejectment
1114  1112C D 2
The notice to quit must not be vague and uncertain
There must be a clear indication in it of the tenant s intention to vacate the premises
Such an intention will be apparent when it is stated in the notice to quit that the tenant will vacate on a particular date or after a certain period of time
When the tenant says that he will vacate by a certain date that will simply mean that he would vacate on or before that date
1112D 1113B C In the instant case the notice to quit could not be said to be vague and uncertain
Though it did not specifi cally mention the date when the appellant would vecate the premises it was apparent from the statement we shall vacate the premises within the next 68 months that the appellant s stay in the premises would not be beyond eight months
It contains a clear intention to vacate the premises positively after the expiry of eight months from the date of the notice
1113C Joseph vs Joseph and Matthewson vs Wright man  referred to
The respondent had by his letter dated April 9 1969 enquired of the appellant as to the date on which the appel lant would vacate the premises so as to enable the respond ent to arrange his occupation of the premises accordingly
If the respondent had not accepted the notice to quit there was no necessity for him to enquire of the appellant as to the precise date of his vacating the premises
The notice having thus been accepted by the respondent the appellant was precluded from challenging the validity thereof
1114E G 41 A notice to quit even if it is defective can be accepted by the 1110 landlord and after such acceptance the tenant will be estopped from challenging the validity of the notice given by him
1114C 42
Clausejof s131 of the Act uses the expression notice to quit and does not lay down the particulars to be mentioned in such notice
It does not also refer to the provision of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act
Even assuming that it is a notice under s106 of the Transfer of Property Act and accordingly the instant notice to quit was bad yet the respondent having accepted the notice to quit it was not open to the appellant to contend that it was invalid and could not be relied upon by the respondent as a ground for eviction
1113G 1114A C Calcutta Credit Corporation Ltd  Anr
vs Happy Homes P Ltd  referred to