JUDGMENT 1. This is the defendant's appeal, arising out of a suit for ejectment. The suit is in respect of premises no. 8, Mohun Bagan Lane. The plaintiff claims to be a purchaser from the previous landlord under a kobala or deed of purchase dated November 21, 1956, registered on November 23 of the same year. The defendant, who was a tenant under the previous landlord, continued to be the tenant under the plaintiff on proper attornment. The rent was Rs. 36/- per month, payable according to the Bengali calendar month. A notice, dated 20th Pous 1363 B. S., corresponding to March 4, 1957, described as a notice of ejectment, appears to have been served on the defendant sometime in the said month of Pous. By the said notice, the defendant was asked to quit and vacate the disputed premises on the expiry of the month of Magh 1363 B. S. In the notice, the ground also was stated, which, according to the plaintiff, was the ground of asking the defendant to quit and vacate the suit premises and the said ground was stated to be that the disputed property was purchased by the plaintiff for her own occupation that she was in a rented house, in which her accommodation was insufficient, and accordingly, she required the present disputed house reasonably for her own occupation. 2. The defence, inter alia, was that the above notice was invalid, both as a notice to quit and also as a notice of suit. On the above pleadings, a specific issue was raised, as issue No. 5, on the question of validity and sufficiency of the above notice. The defence also disputed the plaintiff's claim of reasonable requirement and her plea of inadequate accommodation in her rented premises and the defence rejoinder on the said point was that the plaintiff was living comfortably in her rented house. 3. On January 31, 1959, the above suit was decreed by the learned trial Judge, and, on March 16 following, the present appeal was filed by the defendant. 4. 3. On January 31, 1959, the above suit was decreed by the learned trial Judge, and, on March 16 following, the present appeal was filed by the defendant. 4. For our present purpose, it will not be necessary to go into any question except the question of the validity or invalidity of the above notice, as, in our view, the plaintiff's suit would fail for defect of the said notice vis-a-vis the statute concerned, and the said notice, however much it might satisfy the requirements of a valid and sufficient notice to quit, would not be in compliance with the terms of the mandatory provision and the mandatory notice under sec. 13 (6)of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, in view and in the context, particularly, of the Special Bench decisions of this court on the point in the cases of (1) Ms. Suraya Properties (P) Ltd. v. Bimalendra Nath Sarkar, (F. A. 444 of 1961) and (2) M. K. Bhimani and Anr. v. Keshab Chandra Basu and Ors., (F. A. 's 101 and 102 of 1961. That Special Bench has ruled that the notice under sec. 13 (6) is an essential pre-requisite to the filing of a suit for ejectment on any of the grounds under sec. 13 (1) except clauses (j) and (k) thereof. The Special Bench has further ruled that this notice is a notice of suit, expressly or by necessary implication, as distinguished from a notice to quit. It has also been held that a single notice may serve the above purposes, provided it contains within it, a notice to quit as also a notice of suit, or, in other words, if it can be read as a notice to quit and also as a notice of suit. The question is whether the: present notice satisfies the above test. That it is a valid notice to quit cannot be disputed. It also gives the ground, on which possession is claimed by the plaintiff. That ground, again, is one of a suit, contemplated under sec. 13 (6), that is, one under a relevant clause of sec. 13 (1. There is, however, no reference in the disputed notice to any of the said two sections and no intimation of any suit for ejectment to the tenant. 5. When the statute, under sec. That ground, again, is one of a suit, contemplated under sec. 13 (6), that is, one under a relevant clause of sec. 13 (1. There is, however, no reference in the disputed notice to any of the said two sections and no intimation of any suit for ejectment to the tenant. 5. When the statute, under sec. 13 (6), requires a notice of suit as distinct from a notice to quit, as held by the Special Bench, a mere notice to quit will not be enough. If a notice to quit would not, by itself, be a notice of suit, the mere mention of the ground of ejectment in a notice to quit would not make it so. A mere notice to quit, however much it might, by itself, ordinarily imply the landlord's intention to evict the tenant, is not a notice of suit, either expressly or by necessary implication, for purposes of sec. 13 (6), as, otherwise, a notice of suit under that section would not have been necessary in addition to and as distinguished from a notice to quit, as held by the above Special Bench. The mere mention of the ground of ejectment in the notice to quit or in some connected document does not alter the position. The position, however, may well be different, if the section [sec. 13 (6)] is referred to in the notice in question, as that section has obvious reference to a proposed suit and may, in appropriate cases, well imply the landlord's intention to file the said proposed suit. Mere reference to the section, however,, howsoever much it may make the notice a notice of suit, may not suffice for the validity of the notice under that section, as, although, according to the majority opinion in the aforesaid Special bench cases, the notice in question need not mention the grounds, it must, in addition to being a notice of suit, as foresaid, and apart from other requisites, be referable to some relevant ground under the said section, either by reason of express mention of such ground therein or by reason of the existence of the context of necessary or relevant correspondence etc. in that behalf or indicating the same. In view of the majority decision in the above Special Bench cases, any other view on the point would make the above section, Sec. 13 (6), nugatory. in that behalf or indicating the same. In view of the majority decision in the above Special Bench cases, any other view on the point would make the above section, Sec. 13 (6), nugatory. We are not prepared to go to that length. 6. We would, accordingly, hold that the mere mention of the ground of ejectment, although that ground is a ground relevant for purposes of sec. 13 (6), would not make a mere notice to quit a notice of suit under the aforesaid section. In the above view, we must hold that the instant suit must fail for want of a proper notice under the above section, however much-that is, even assuming that-it might have otherwise succeeded on the merits. We would, accordingly, allow this appeal and dismiss the plaintiff's suit solely on the ground that a proper notice under sec. 13 (6)of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, was not given by the plaintiff in the instant case. It is unnecessary, in the above view, to go into any other question, involved in the instant suit, and all other questions, accordingly, are left open in this proceeding. The appeal, therefore, succeeds, the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge are set aside and the plaintiff's suit is dismissed only on the ground of want or absence of a proper notice under sec. 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. 7. In the circumstances of this case, we would direct the parties to bear their own costs throughout.