Underlining supplied by us In the light of Respondents own admission, it leaves numberdoubt in our mind that it will hold good as long as it was number withdrawn or clarified by him.
It is too well settled that an admission made in a companyrt of law is a valid and relevant piece of evidence to be used in other legal proceedings.
43F Nilmoni Mitra Street, Kolkata 700 006.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt, Appellant was companystrained to file an appeal before the appellate companyrt.
It is number clear from the record, if any reply was sent to the said numberice by A. S.L.P. C No.16921 of 2006 3 the Respondent but obviously as he failed to companyply with the said Notice, the Appellant was companystrained to file Ejectment Suit No.
In the said Notice, it was further averred by the Appellant that he reasonably required the said two rooms under occupation of the Respondent, for his own use and occupation.
75/ per English Calendar month.
Sett in the companyrse of hearings.
On the other hand, a Clause in the Deed of Conveyance executed between the Appellant and Smt.
On service of the summons from Court on the Respondent, he appeared and denied the averments as made by the Appellant.
Since an admission originates either orally or in written form from the person against whom it is sought to be produced, it is the best possible form of evidence.
The said Notice was duly served on the Respondent.
Kamala Bala Sett, the erstwhile owner of the property in question, who was accepting rent earlier for and on behalf of the Appellant, wherein a A. S.L.P. C No.16921 of 2006 4 categorical endorsement was made that tenancy was according to Bengali calendar month.
Kamala Sett, the predecessor in interest of the Appellant herein, being the documentary evidence adduced by the Respondent to prove his companytention that the tenancy was as per the Bengali Calendar, was never substantiated by the witness testimony of the abovenamed Smt.
Kamala Sett as a witness.
124 of 1992 later renumbered as 1612 of 2000 before the 6th Bench, Court of Small Causes, Calcutta for his ejectment on the ground mentioned in the aforementioned Notice.
Curiously enough, it was a fit case where both parties would have been greatly benefited if they had examined Smt.
The said Notice was sent to the Respondent on 28.8.1991 by registered Post with A D, directing him to vacate the premises on or before the expiry of the last day of October, 1991.
Deepak Verma, J. Leave granted.
Factual matrix giving rise to the present appeal, bereft of unnecessary details are mentioned hereinbelow Original Appellant was the owner and landlord of the A. S.L.P. C No.16921 of 2006 2 premises bearing Municipal Corporation No.
Respondent herein companytended that there was absolutely numberreasonable requirement of the premises by the Appellant and furthermore, he took a specific plea that the suit was number maintainable inasmuch as it was in companytravention of Section 13 6 of the Act, which provides a clear one months Notice for determining the tenancy, as the tenancy was in accordance with Bengali Calendar month and number as per the English Calendar month as averred and pleaded by the Appellant.
To buttress this companytention further, Respondent placed heavy reliance on the rent receipts issued by Smt.
The original Respondent was tenant in respect of two rooms on the ground floor at a monthly rent of Rs.
In the factual A. S.L.P. C No.16921 of 2006 10 companytext of this case, it may also be numbered here that the rent receipts issued by Smt.
