Judgment : The plaintiffs' case is that the defendant was a tenant in respect of the disputed premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 18.00 according to English Calendar. They reasonably require the suit premises for their own use and occupation. The defendant is a defaulter from June 1970 and she illegally sublet a portion of the premises without their consent. The tenancy was duly determined by a notice to quit. The suit is for ejectment and also for recovery of mesne profits. 2. The defence is a denial of the plaintiffs' allegations. It has been stated that the suit is not maintainable. The rooms in question were in a dilapidated condition and immediate repairs were called for. She approached the plaintiffs nos. 1 and 2 and they agreed that the defendant would carry out the repair work and the sum spent for such work would be adjusted against the rent. In August, 1970, she completed such work by spending Rs. 400 00. She approached the plaintiff No. 1 for making proper adjustment, but no such adjustment was made. Hence she was compelled to deposit the rent with the Rent Controller from October, 1970. 3. In the trial court the case of reasonable requirement was not pressed. The learned Munsif accepted the plaintiffs' version and held that the defendant was a defaulter and she did not spend Rs. 400.00 as alleged. The story of subletting was not accepted. The suit was decreed only on the ground of default made by the tenant defendant. An appeal was preferred against this. In the court of appeal below an argument was advanced that in view of the provisions of the Section 13 (3A) of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act 1956 the suit was not maintainable because the plaintiffs purchased eight annas share in the disputed plot in June, 1970, whereas the suit was instituted in June, 1971, that is, within one year of the purchase. This ground was negatived. The appellate court otherwise accepted the learned Munsif's findings and dismissed the appeal on the ground that the defendant was a defaulter. Being aggrieved by that decision the present appeal has been filed. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the suit is not maintainable because of the mandatory provisions of Section 13(3A) of the Act. The appellate court otherwise accepted the learned Munsif's findings and dismissed the appeal on the ground that the defendant was a defaulter. Being aggrieved by that decision the present appeal has been filed. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the suit is not maintainable because of the mandatory provisions of Section 13(3A) of the Act. The suit was instituted within one year of the plaintiffs' purchase of eight annas share of the landlord in the disputed property. Reference has been made to the case of (1) Kameswar Singh v. Sahadeb in 74 CWN 715 at page 717 to show that the language of Sub-Section (3A) of Section 13 of the Act aims at the institution of the suit for ejectment and does not aim at the order of decree. It has been contended that the institution of the suit was initially bad because the prayer for reasonable requirement was added with the allegations of default and subletting. The plaintiffs subsequently did not amend the plaint or withdraw the suit. Hence the suit must fail on that ground alone. It has been also stated that the story of default cannot be accepted. The plaintiff No. 1 was not examined. Due to such non-examination there will be an adverse inference against the plaintiffs. If the adjustment is granted to the extent of Rs. 400.00 no question of default will arise. Moreover, the notice to quit shows that the tenancy was sought to be determined on the ground of the plaintiffs' reasonable requirement of the premises in question. 5. The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents Mr. Sakti Prasad Mookherjee has stated that the appeal is concluded by findings of fact. The suit is maintainable because the grounds of subletting and default were joined with the prayer for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement. The ground of reasonable requirement was given up in the trial court. So there is no defect in the plaint. 6. In the case of (1) Kameswar Singh v. Sahadeb (supra) the suit was filed on the ground of resonable requirement alone, whereas in this case we find that the plaintiffs, have made a composite claim asking for ejectment on the grounds of reasonable requirement, illegal subletting and default. So there is no defect in the plaint. 6. In the case of (1) Kameswar Singh v. Sahadeb (supra) the suit was filed on the ground of resonable requirement alone, whereas in this case we find that the plaintiffs, have made a composite claim asking for ejectment on the grounds of reasonable requirement, illegal subletting and default. The language of Section 13(3A) shows that the landlord is debarred from instituting the suit for ejectment within three years of his purchase where he claims to recover possession solely on the ground of reasonable requirement for the purpose of building or rebuilding or for making substantial addition or alteration or on the ground of reasonable requirement for the purpose of own use and occupation, that is, if the grounds are covered by the clauses (f) or (ff) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13. Since the suit was filed for recovery of possession not solely on the ground mentioned in clause (f) or (ff) of Sub-section (1) of section 13, but also on the grounds of subletting and default, it must be held that the suit is maintainable. 7. Then about the question of default and adjustment. There is the concurrent findings of both the courts below that the repair work was not carried out and hence the case of adjustment could not be believed. This finding is sufficient for the disposal of this point. Further the decision of this Court in (2) K. Kumar v. Dhiraj Rao in AIR 1975 Cal 123 shows that without a special covenant the tenant cannot withhold payments of' rent and he has to prove that the landlord is bound to carry out the repair work. This contract has not been proved in this case. Moreover, section 34 of the West Bengal Act XXII of 1956 has brought about a change in the legal position in respect of the repair work. In this case no notice was given and the Rent Controller was not moved. Sub-Section (4) of Section 34 shows that where under the condition of tenancy the tenant is bound to make any repair but fails to do so, the Controller shall on an application made to him cause a notice to be served on the tenant requiring him to make the repair. This is not the case here. Sub-Section (4) of Section 34 shows that where under the condition of tenancy the tenant is bound to make any repair but fails to do so, the Controller shall on an application made to him cause a notice to be served on the tenant requiring him to make the repair. This is not the case here. Sub-Section (3) enjoins that notwithstanding anything contained in any law or in any agreement, the landlord's duty is to keep the premises wind and watertight. If he fails to do so, the provisions of Sub-Section (1) and (2) will apply. It has already been indicated that the Rent Controller was not approached in this matter and the special covenant was not proved. Hence this plea was rightly nagatived by the courts below. Since the story of adjustment fails, it must be held that the defendant is a defaulter and the decree for ejectment was rightly passed on the ground of default. Thus the submissions made on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted. 8. A statement in the notice about reasonable requirement is of little imprortance because no ground of ejectment need be stated herein. Moreover, when the plaintiffs clearly gave up the case of reasonable requirement in the trial Court, this point lost all force. The appeal be, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.