JUDGMENT 1. THESE three second appeals arise out of three suits for eviction and the plaintiff and the defendant are common in all the cases. The courts below found in each case that the defendant was a tenant of the disputed structures under the plaintiff, that the tenancy had been lawfully determined by a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and decreed the suits on these findings. The only point raised by Mr. Ganguly appearing for the defendant-appellant in these appeals is that the landlord not having given to the tenant a notice under Section 13 (6) of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act, 1956, the suits were incompetent and the courts below erred in not dismissing them on this ground. On behalf of the respondent mr. Burman's answer to this argument is that the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act did not extend to the city of durgapur where the disputed premises are situate. Admittedly, no notice as contemplated in Section 13 (6) of the aforesaid Act was served and there can be no dispute that in the absence of such a notice the suits for eviction would not be maintainable if the Act was in operation in the locality in question. Thus the only point arising for decision in these appeals is whether or not the said Act was in operation In the area where the premises in dispute are situate when the suits were filed on september 1, 1962. 2. SECTION 1 (3) of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act defines its extent, the relevant part of which is as follows :- "it extends to the whole of calcutta and to all areas which have been or may hereafter be constituted municipalities under the provisions of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 (Bengal act XV of 1932). Provided that the State Government may, by notification, extend this act or any part thereof to any other area specified in the notification, or may. by notification, exclude any area from the operation of this Act or any specified part thereof". Thus, outside the city of Calcutta the operation of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act is confined to areas constituted municipalities under the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 and to other areas where it has been extended by notification either in whole or in part. by notification, exclude any area from the operation of this Act or any specified part thereof". Thus, outside the city of Calcutta the operation of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act is confined to areas constituted municipalities under the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 and to other areas where it has been extended by notification either in whole or in part. It is not claimed that the Act or any part of it has been extended to durgapur area by notification issued under Section 1 (3) of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act. The main plank of Mr. Ganguly's argument is the definition of "municipality" given in section 3 (34) of the Bengal Municipal act as meaning any place in which the said Act, or any part thereof, is in force, the admitted position being that some of the provisions of the Bengal Municipal Act have been made applicable to durgapur which is a notified area within the meaning of Section 93a of the said Act. Mr. Ganguly's contention is that Durgapur being thus a municipality, the provisions of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act apply to this area by virtue of Section 1 (3) thereof. 3. ASSUMING that Durgapur is a municipality within the meaning of the term as defined in Section 3 (34) of the bengal Municipal Act, which definition, however, applies as the opening words of Section 3 state only if there is nothing repugnant in the subject or context, it does not follow that the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy act would apply there. As Section 1 (3)of the latter Act shows it extends only to areas constituted municipalities under the Bengal Municipal Act and not to all areas which can be called municipalities in terms of Section 3 (34)of the Bengal Municipal Act. It is not necessary for the present purpose to consider the scope and subject of the definition of 'municipality' in the Bengal municipal Act; part II of that Act contains provisions for the constitution of a municipality and admittedly durgapur is not a municipality constituted in accordance with these provisions, durgapur is a notified area constituted under Chapter IIIA of the Bengal Municipal Act which includes Section 93a to Section 93j. Sub-section (1) of Section 93a provides:- "whenever in the opinion of the State Government, it is necessary to make provisions for all or any of the purposes of this Act in respect of- (i) any area which does not fulfil the conditions for being constituted a municipality under this Act, (ii) any area which is comprised in a newly developing town, or (iii) any area in which new industries have been or are being established, the State government may, by notification, specifying such area, declare its intention to do so". 4. SUB-SECTIONS (2) and (3) of section 93a prescribe the procedure for constituting the area specified in the notification or any part thereof, as a notified area for purposes of the aforesaid Chapter IIIA. Section 93d of the said Act lays down that the "state Government may, at any time, and. in accordance with the provisions of this: act, by notification (i) constitute the notified area or any part thereof to be a municipality, or (ii) include the notified area or any part thereof within a municipality". The terms of Section 93a (1) and Section 93d quoted above make it plain that a notified area is distinct from a municipality constituted under the Bengal Municipal Act. Under Section 93b of the said Act the State Government may extend to a notified area any provision of that Act and several sections of the Act have been made applicable in the notified area of durgapur, but this does not constitute Durgapur a municipality. It must therefore, be held that the provisions of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act had no operation in the notified area of Durgapur where the disputed premises are situate when the instant suits were filed. 5. THE point whether the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act extends to Durgapur area was also considered by Chatterjee, J. in his unreported decision in (1) Hari Narayan Mukherjee v. Suresh Chandra Gupta, C. R. 4342 of 1966 and his Lordship held that it did not. Bijayesh Mukherji, J. in (2) S. R. Chatterjee v. Hindusthan Steel Ltd. 73 cwn 228, also follows the decision of chatterjee, J. on this point. Mr. Bijayesh Mukherji, J. in (2) S. R. Chatterjee v. Hindusthan Steel Ltd. 73 cwn 228, also follows the decision of chatterjee, J. on this point. Mr. Ganguly, in course of his submission, expressed surprise that the tenants in durgapur area should be denied the benefit of the provisions of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act when the shortage of accommodation in that growing steel town was also no less acute. That, however, is a matter of policy with which the Court is not concerned, the provisions of both the statutes, West Bengal Premises Tenancy act, 1956 as well as the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, being quite clear and unambiguous on the point in dispute. 6. THESE appeals therefore, fail and are dismissed but without any order as to costs. Leave to appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is asked for and is refused.