The application was allowed by the Munsif but was dismissed on appeal by the tenants by the Subordinate Judge.
Hence this appeal.
Lilawati Devi Ghoudhurani had signed the numberice.
The landlords challenged the order of the Subordinate Judge in the Calcutta High Court but were unsuccessful.
We have examined the original numberice dated 8.1.1958.
It was also signed by Raja Prosed Roy Choudhury whose minor son is Kumar Debapriya Prosad Roy Choudhury mentioned at serial 9 at the top of the numberice.
On examination of the original numberice what is clear is that the numberice was from and on behalf of all the companyowner landlords including all the minors as mentioned at the top of the numberice.
It was number necessary for Raja Prosad Roy Choudhury to specifically say at the foot of the numberice 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.
At the foot signatures were appended.
Sobhendra Prasad Roy Choudury signed for self and companystituted attorney of the other landlords mentioned in the top.
He took the view that the numberice given on the 8th of January, 1958 was number given on behalf of all the companyowner Landlords as the name of one of the minor companyowner landlord was number mentioned at the foot of the numberice.
On behalf of minor Suspundra Prosad Roy Choudhury his guardian and mother Smt.
The ground for eviction was as provided in Section 3 IV of the said Act.
In the paper book as printed there is a slight inaccuracy.
L. Untwalia, J. 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 1919 as it then stood after serving a numberice on the tenant respondents to quit in accordance with Section 4.
