judgement:
etition (Civil) Nos.
13097 13 176 Of 1984 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
M.S. Ganesh for the Petitioners.
V. Kanth, Ms. Halida Khatun, C.V. Subba Rao and N.S. Das Bahl for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 1016 VENKATARAMIAH, J.
The petitioners in these petitions, 80 in number.
are employees of the Central Government working in the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Some of them are holding the posts of Sub Inspectors, some are Inspectors and the remaining are the Deputy Superintendents of Police in the Central Investigating Units of the Central Bureau of Investigation.
There are two classes of officials amongst those who are holding the posts of Sub Inspectors, Inspectors and Deputy Superintendents of Police.
The first class of those officials to which the petitioners belong consists of those who have been recruited directly to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
They are hereinafter referred to as 'non deputationists '.
The other class of officials in those cadres consists of those who have been drawn from various State cadres.
They are hereinafter referred to as 'deputationists.
In this case the dispute relates to the discrimination that has been brought about by the Central Government re garding the Special Pay payable to the two groups of offi cers, namely, 'deputationists ' and 'non deputationists '.
While a Deputy Superintendent of Police who belongs to the category of 'deputationists ' is getting Rs. 150 per month by way of Special Pay, a Deputy Superintendent of Police who is a non deputationist gets Rs. 100 per month as Special Pay.
Similarly while an Inspector belonging to the former catego ry gets Rs. 125 per month as Special Pay, an Inspector belonging to the latter category gets Rs.75 per month as Special Pay and while a Sub Inspector belonging to the former category gets Rs. 100 per month by way of Special Pay, a Sub Inspector belonging to the latter category gets Rs.50 per month.
The petitioners, who are non deputation ists, claim that they should also be paid the same Special Pay which the deputationists are getting with effect from the date on which the deputationists commenced to draw the Special Pay at higher rates.
The two groups of officers, referred to above are all working in the 14 Branches of the Central Bureau of Investi gation which are called Central Investigating Units.
It is not disputed that the two sets of officers, namely the 'non deputationists ' and the 'deputationists ' in the ranks of Sub Inspectors, Inspectors and Deputy Superintendents of Police discharge the same functions, duties and responsibil ities in the various Central Investigating Units.
They have to travel to different places for purposes of investigation into the several cases entrusted to them.
The Special pay that is being paid to the deputationists is in addition to the Deputation Allowance paid to them which is not admissi ble to the non deputationists.
The Deputation Allowance is paid to the 1017 deputationists as compensation for the temporary displace ment from their parent cadres occasioned by their deputation to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
At present a Deputy Superintendent of Police who is on deputation gets Rs. 150 per month as Deputation Allowance, an Inspector who is on deputation gets Its. 125 per month as Deputation Allowance and a Sub Inspector who is on deputation gets Rs. 100 per month as Deputation Allowance.
It is also alleged that in the non Central Investigating Units of the Central Bureau of Investigation the rates of Special Pay paid to the officers working in the three cadres of Sub Inspectors, Inspectors and Deputy Superintendents of Police are the same both in the case of deputationists and non deputationists, but in the case of Central Investigating Units, however, to which the petitioners belong the deputationists in all the three ranks get Special Pay at higher rates as stated above.
It would also appear that between June, 1976 and August, 1979 the Deputy Superintendents of Police belonging to the cate gory of non deputationists were totally denied the Special Pay of Rs. 150 per month which was being given to the Deputy Superintendents of Police who are on deputation.
It is contended by the petitioners that the denial, of the Special pay at the same rates at which.
the deputationists are being paid amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
In answer to the above claim of the petitioners it is stated on behalf of the Central Government in the counter affidavit filed by Shri R.S. Nagpal, Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms) that because the State Governments had revised scales of pay of their staff including the State Police from different dates merging whole or substantial portion of the dearness allowance and because the dearness allowance and the structure of pay scales differed widely from one State to another, there could not be any comparison between the scales of pay of the deputationists and the scales of pay of the non deputation ists which had been fixed on the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission.
It is further stated that the Special Pay was being paid to the deputationists at a higher rate to attract officers of high caliber from their parent depart ments and the arduous nature of their duties.
It is well settled by several decisions of this Court that in order to pass the test of permissible classification of persons belonging to the same class into groups for purposes of differential treatment two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons who 1018 are grouped together from others left out of the group and that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the law which brings about discrimination between the two groups.
The Deputation Allow ance which is paid to the deputationists with which the petitioners have no quarrel compensates the difficulties which the deputationists may encounter on account of their displacement from their parent departments.
The Special Pay, however, is not actually paid as compensation for such displacement.
This is quite evident from the recent proposal which was submitted to the FOurth Pay Commission by the Government of India.
it reads thus: "Considering special nature of duties of Investigating Officers in Central Branches and the fact that they were to remain on extensive tours spreading about 20 days a month, the rate of special pay for deputationist officers only was raised by Rs.50 p.m. for S.Is, Inspectors and Dy.
P. They get special pay at the following rates: Dy.
S.P . .
Rs. 150 Inspector .
Rs. 125 Sub Inspector . .
Rs. 100 There has been a demand that departmental officers posted in Central Branches should also be entitled to the same amount of enhanced special pay which has been sanc tioned to the deputationists.
It is considered that this demand is genuine and the Government had desired it should be projected before the Fourth Pay Commission.
" It is clear from the foregoing proposal submitted to the Fourth Pay Commission that the Special Pay was being paid at higher rates to the deputationists not because of their displacement from the parent departments but as compensation for the arduous nature of the duties performed by them as Investigating Officers in the Central Branches which includ ed extensive tours spreading over about 20 days a month which they had to undertake.
It is not in dispute that the nature of the duties performed by the deputationists as Investigating Officers is the same as the nature of duties performed by the non deputationists as Investigating Offi cers.
It is significant that the said proposal which was submitted perhaps during the pendency of this Writ Petition does not 1019 refer to the difference in the rates of pay and dearness allowance which the deputationists were getting as members belonging to the Police departments of different States nor does it state that the Special Pay was being paid for at tracting talent from the State Services.
The petitioners have alleged that the non deputationists holding the posts of Sub Inspectors, Inspectors and Deputy Superintendents of Police are highly qualified persons and are equally talented and this allegation is not properly traversed in the coun ter affidavit.
It is seen that pursuant to the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission as accepted by the Central Government both the nondeputationists and the deputationists in the ranks of Sub Inspectors and Inspectors were being paid the same Special Pay with effect from January 1, 1973.
On that occasion the Deputy Superintendents of Police of either category were not granted any Special pay.
By its letter No. 203/13/76 AVD II dated 21.6, 1976 the Government of India intimated the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation its decision that the Police officers on deputation to the Central Bureau of Investigation as Deputy Superintendents of Police, Inspectors and Sub Inspectors and posted in one of the Central Units had been granted Special Pay at the fol lowing rates with effect from the date of issue of the said order: Dy.
section P . .
Rs. 150 p.m. Inspector .
Rs. 125 p.m. Sub Inspector .
Rs. 100 p.m.
By the aforesaid decision dated 21.6.1976 the Central Gov ernment disturbed the existing parity of Special Pay between non deputationists and deputationists which it had accepted pursuant to the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission, as stated above, and commenced the discrimination complained of in this case.
The Government Order dated 21.6.
1976 did not give any reason as to why in the case of the deputation ists alone there was an increase in the rates of Special Pay, but it is clear from its letter written on 6.7.1976 by Shri D. Sen, Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation to the Superintendents of Police of the Central Units that the Higher Special Pay had been sanctioned in order to compensate to a certain extent the arduous nature of the job which the Investigating Officers had to perform.
He stated in the course of the letter thus: "Recently . . we have been able to get higher special pay sanctioned for all the Investigating officers posted in 1020 Central Units.
This should compensate them to a certain extent for the arduous nature of the job which they have to perform in a Central Unit . " A reading of that letter does not, however, suggest that the Director had noticed that the rates of Special Pay had been increased only in the case of deputationists and not in the case of non deputationists.
By its letter dated 2.2.1978 Shri P.C. Sharma, who was then working as Sub Inspector (now Inspector and one of the Petitioners herein) submitted a representation to the Director requesting that he might also be granted enhanced rate of Special Pay at par with the deputationist Sub Inspectors posted in Central Units with retrospective effect.
He pointed out that he had been work ing in one of the Central Units and that he had been per forming the same duties as any of the deputationist officers in the Central Units.
He further stated that the job re quirements in the Central Units did not make any distinction between a deputationist and a non deputationist Sub Inspec tor and that often it had been found that assignments of complicated nature had been entrusted to the non deputation ists.
Similar representations were made by other Sub Inspec tors and Inspectors who are petitioners before us.
Along with his letter dated 8.2.1978 the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation forwarded to the Central Government eight such representations for the grant of Special Pay at the enhanced rates.
On 22.2.
1978 the Minis try of Home Affairs intimated the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation that the question of grant of Special Pay to the non deputationist Inspectors and Sub Inspectors of the Central Bureau of Investigation working in the Central Branches at the same rates at which it was then admissible to the deputationist officers of the correspond ing ranks had already been taken up with the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms and that the Government decision in that regard was Still awaited.
On 27.8.1979 the Government of India sanctioned with immediate effect a Special Pay of Rs. 100 per month to the non deputationist Deputy Superintendents of Police in the Central Bureau of Investigation.
The question of maintaining parity in the matter of payment of Special Pay between the deputationists and the non deputationists was taken up for consideration at the meeting of the CBI Staff Council presided over by the then Home Minister Shri Zail Singh.
The Home Minister as sured the Staff Council that the request of the non deputa tionists would be considered sympathetically by the Govern ment and an early decision would be taken.
The said question was again raised at the meeting of the Staff Council on the 30th October, 1982 and at the meeting held on 1021 17.1.
On 11.27.1983 the Home Department again wrote to the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investiga tion that the question of granting of Special Pay to the non deputationists in the Central Bureau of Investigation at the rates applicable to deputationists was still under consideration with the Government and that its decision would be communicated as and when it was taken.
Again on 26.3.1984 the Home Department addressed a letter to all the Superintendents of Police on the subject of Special Pay.
It reads thus: No. A. 110 19/6/80 IWSU Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs Department of Personnel & A.R. C.B.I, Kotah House Hutments, New Delhi Dated 26.3.84 To The Superintendents of Police, Central Bureau of Investiga tion, All Central Units located in Delhi Subject: Grant of special pay of the enhanced rates to the non deputationist Dy.
P., Inspectors and section Is.
working in the Central Branches.
Sir, I have the honour to say that of late a number of representations have been received from departmental offi cers of the level of S.Is.
to Dy.
P. working in the Central Units, requesting for special pay at par with the deputationist officers.
I am to inform your that a proposal has already been sent to the Government requesting them to sanction higher rates of special pay for non deputationists Dy.
Ss. P., Inspectors and section Is.
while working in the Central Units of C.B.I. The decision when taken will be communicated to all concerned.
You are requested to inform all departmental officers suitably in the matter.
Yours faithfully, Sd (R.S. Nagpal) Administrative Officer (E) C.B.I." 1022 It is thus seen that at no point of time there was any suggestion by the Government of India that the non deputa tionists were not entitled to the same treatment with the deputationists as regards Special Pay.
On the other hand.
the letter addressed to the Fourth Pay Commission by the Home Department which is referred to above clearly stated that: "There has been demand that departmental officers posted in Central Branches should also be entitled to the same amount of enhanced special pay which has been sanc tioned to deputationists.
It is considered that this demand is genuine and the Government had desired it should be projected before the Fourth Pay Commission".
There appears to be thus no rational explanation for the Government taking up a contrary stand in the counter affidavit filed before us while it had accepted that the demand made by the petition ers, who were the departmental officers posted in the Cen tral Units, was a genuine one.
From the foregoing discussion it emerges that the Spe cial pay that was being paid to all the officers in the cadre of Sub Inspectors, Inspectors and Deputy Superintend ents of Police in the Central Investigating Units of the Central Bureau of Investigation has nothing to do with any compensation for which the deputationists may be entitled either on the ground of their richer experience or on the ground of their displacement from their parent departments in the various States, but it relates only to the arduous nature of the duties that is being performed by all of them irrespective of the fact whether they belong to the category of the 'deputationists ' or to the category of the 'non deputationists '.
That being the position.
the classification of the officers working in the said cadres into two groups, namely, deputationists and non deputationists for paying different rates of Special Pay does not pass the test of classification permissible under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India since it does not bear any rational relation to the object of classification.
In these circumstances,.
it is difficult to accept the stand of the Central Government justifying the discriminato ry treatment meted out to the non deputationists as regards payment of Special Pay.
We, therefore, direct the Central Government to pay the nondeputationists who have been working in the cadres of Sub Inspectors, Inspectors and Deputy Superintendents of Police in the Central Investigating Units of the Central Bureau of Investigation Special Pay at the same rates at which the deputationists are being paid with effect from the date from which the decision contained in the letter of the 1023 Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat bearing No. 203/13/76AVD.II dated 21.6.1976 came into force upto date and to pay hereafter Special Pay to all the officers (depu tationists and non deputationists) in the said cadres at the same rates.
The arrears of Special Pay payable upto date shall be paid within four months from today.
The Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed.
No costs.

summary:
There are two classes of officials amongst those who are holding the posts of Sub Inspectors, Inspectors and Deputy Superintendents of Police in the Central Bureau of Investi gation namely (i) who are directly recruited and (ii) those who have been drawn from various State cadres on deputation basis.
The deputationists are paid Deputation Allowance as compensation for the temporary displacement from their parent cadres occasioned by their deputation to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Pursuant to the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission as accepted by the Central Govern ment both the Direct recruits and "deputationists" in the rank of Sub Inspectors and Inspectors were paid equal rate of Special Pay from 1.7.73, while the Dy.
Superintendents were not paid anything.
Both the direct recruits and the deputationists posted in one of the Central Units were granted Special Pay considering the special nature of duties of investigating officers, by its letter No. 203/13/76 AUD II dated 21.6.1976.
But the Special Pay granted to the deputationists were more in all the three categories.
Having failed to get the disparity in the pay ment of Special Pay set aright at the departmental level, the aggrieved direct recruits (non deputationists) have approached the Supreme Court for justice through their petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Allowing the petitions, the Court, HELD: It is well settled by several decisions of the Supreme Court that in order to pass the test of permissible classification of persons belonging to the same class into groups for purposes of differential treatment two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes 1015 persons who are grouped together from others left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the law which brings about discrimination between the two groups.
[1017G H; 1018A] The Special Pay that was being paid to all the officers in the cadre of Sub Inspectors.
Inspectors and Deputy Super intendents of Police in the Central Investigating Units of the Central Bureau of Investigation has nothing to do with any compensation for which the deputationists may be enti tled either on the ground of their richer experience or on the ground of their displacement from their parent depart ments in the various States, but it relates only to the arduous nature of the duties that is being performed by all of them irrespective of the fact whether they belong to the category of the 'deputationists ' or to the category of 'non deputationists '.
That being the position, the classifi cation of the officers working in the said cadres into two groups, namely, deputationists and non deputationists for paying different rates of Special Pay does not pass the test of classification permissible under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India since it does not bear any ration al relation to the object of classification.
[1022D F] The Court directed the Central Government to pay the nondeputationists who have been working in the cadres of Sub Inspectors, Inspectors and Deputy Superintendents of Police in the Central Investigating Units of the Central Bureau of Investigation Special Pay at the same rates at which the deputationists are being paid with effect from the date from which the decision contained in the letter of the Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat beaming No. 203/13/76 AVD.II dated 21.6.1976 came into force upto date and to pay hereafter Special Pay to all the officers (depu tationists and non deputationists) in the said cadres at the same rates.) [1022G H; 1023A B]


judgement:
ivil Appeal No. 1160 of 1978 From the Judgment and Order dated 9.12.
1977 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Appellate Decree No.782 of 1973 S.N. Kacker and Sukumar Ghosh for the Appellant.
Shankar Ghosh and D.K. Sinha and K.R. 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 13(1) 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 13(1) of the act and reads as follows: "section 13(1).
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 6/8 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 6/8 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 13(1) 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 13(1) 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 13(1) 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 13(1), 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 13(1) 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 6/8 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 M.R., "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 6/8 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 13(1) 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 13(1) 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.
P.S.S. Appeal dismissed.

dataset_name: IN-Abs

summary:
Clause (.i) of s.13(1) 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 6/8 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 s.13( 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 s.13(1)(j) 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 cl.(j) ors.13(1) 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 13(1) 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 6/8 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] 4.1 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] 4.2.
Clause(j)of s.13(1) 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 s.106 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.