Case: Subhendu Prosad Roy Choudhury and Others Vs. Kamala Bala Roy Choudhury and Others

This is a landlords appeal by special leave. They had filed a petition in the year 1958 in the Court of the Munsif at Alipore under Section 5 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 as it then stood after serving a notice on theto quit in accordance with Section 4. The ground for eviction was as provided in Section 3(iv) of the said Act. The application was allowed by the Munsif but was dismissed on appeal by the tenants by the subordinate Judge. He took the view that the notice given on the 8th January, 1958 was not given on behalf of all thelandlords as the name of one of the minorlandlord was not mentioned at the foot of the notice. The landlords challenged the order of the subordinate Judge in the Calcutta High Court but were unsuccessful. Hence this appeal.

Reasoning: In our opinion the notice was signed and given by and on behalf of all thelandlords including all the minors. It was not necessary for Raja Prosad Roy Choudhury to specifically say at the foot of the notice that he was signing it on behalf of his minor son also, specially when the name of the minor had been mentioned at serial 9 at the top. In our judgment, therefore, the view of the appellate authority as also of the High Court that notice on behalf of Kumar Debapriya Roy Choudhury was not given in erroneous. Even assuming that notice was not given on behalf of one of thelandlords, the decision of this Court in Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath ((1977) 1 SCR 395  : (1976) 4 SCC 184 ) would show that yet the notice was good and valid.