N. C. MUKHERJI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Sri C. Samaddar, Subordinate Judge, 6th Court, Alipore in Title Appeal no. 321 of 1968 dated the 5th August, 1968 reversing those of Sri I. Mondal, Additional Munsif, Sealdah in Title suit no. 145 of 1967 dated 20th January, 1968. ( 2 ) DEFENDANT is the appellant in this court. Plaintiff brought the suit for ejectment. Plaintiff's case is that the defendant took lease of the suit property from the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, that the defendant has dishonoured the terms of the lease and is liable to ejectment. The defendant has defaulted in payment of rent from Bhadra 1363 B. S. and that the defendant has cut down one cocoanut tree on the land. The defence is that the defendant has not violated the terms of the lease and the notice of ejectment is illegal. ( 3 ) AT the time of the trial the plaintiff gave up the case of sub letting. On the ground of default it was found by the trial court with reference to the Challans that there was no default on the part of the defendant in payment of rent. The trial court found that by cutting down of a cocoanut tree it couldn't be said that the land was used objectionably and was damaged. That being so, it was no violation of the terms of the lease. The trial court also found that the notice was invalid. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the District Judge. the appeal was heard by the learned Additional District Judge. Before the learned court of appeal below, the plaintiff only challenged the finding of the learned Munsif that the cutting of the standing cocoanut tree does not constitute damage to the leased property. The finding of the learned Munsif to the effect that the notice was invalid was also challenged. ( 4 ) D. W. 1, in cross-examination admitted that there was a cocoanut tree standing on the suit land. His father cut down the said tree with the verbal permission of the plaintiff by some hired Muslims. Ext. 1, the lease deed, does not mention the cocoanut tree being situated on the leased land. ( 4 ) D. W. 1, in cross-examination admitted that there was a cocoanut tree standing on the suit land. His father cut down the said tree with the verbal permission of the plaintiff by some hired Muslims. Ext. 1, the lease deed, does not mention the cocoanut tree being situated on the leased land. P. W. 1, though in examination-in-chief, states that the defendant cut down one cocoanut tree on the land, in cross examination he was compelled to admit that the tree was not given in the lease. He further states that he does not know whether Hindus cut down cocoanut tree or not. ( 5 ) THIS being the nature of evidence, it cannot be ascertained with certainty that the cocoanut tree was included in the lease property. That being so, even assuming that the defendant cut down the tree, it cannot be said that the cutting down of the tree has caused any damage to the leased property. ( 6 ) WITH regard to the validity of the notice, it is seen that in the notice (Ext. 5), the grounds of default and that using the demised land for the purpose other than the purpose for which it was let out have been mentioned. But nothing has been said about the causing damage to the suit land by cutting down the cocoanut tree. As has been stated earlier, that the plaintiff could not succeed on the ground of the subletting. The only ground on which the suit was decreed by the learned court of appeal below was that the defendant caused damage to the leased property by cutting down the cocoanut tree. ( 7 ) MR. Padmabindu Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the provisions of section 114a of the Transfer of Property Act have not been complied with. Section 114a provides: "relief against forfeiture in certain other cases"- this section lays down that where a lease of immovable property has been determined by forfeiture for breach of an express condition which provides that on breach there of the lessor may re-enter, no suit for ejectment shall lie unless and until the lessor has served on the lessee a notice in writing (a) specifying the particular breach and (b) if the breach is capable of remedy, requiring the lessee to remedy the breach. ( 8 ) MR. ( 8 ) MR. Chatterjee submits that as a notice under section 114a was not served on the defendant, the suit is not maintainable Mr. Lahiri, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submits that section 114a is applicable only in cases where the breach is capable of remedy. In other cases, no notice under section 114a need be served. I do not agree with the submission made by Mr. Lahiri, Section 114a has two parts first part says that a notice in writing must be served specifying the particular breach complained of. The second part provides that if the breach is capable of remedy the lease should be asked to remedy the breach. Even in the case where the breach is not capable of remedy, in the notice, particular breach complained of must be specified. This being the position, I am of opinion that the learned court of appeal below was also wrong to find that the notice, Ext. 5 is valid. ( 9 ) IT is seen that the learned court of appeal below wrongly found that the case was governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. I am of opinion that this case is governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. For the reasons that stated above, the judgment passed by the learned court of appeal below cannot be sustained. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed on contest. The judgment and decree passed by the court of Appeal below are set aside and those of the learned Munsif are restored. There will, however, be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal succeeds.