JUDGMENT 1. THIS appeal at the instance of the defendant arises out of a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement as also under section 13 (1) (k) of the west Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The suit property originally belonged to one Balaram Chandra. Balaram chandra had erected pucca construction on such land and for the purpose, he, it is alleged in the plaint, took a loan of rs. 1150/- in Baisakh 1364, frorn Nikhi chandra De (defendant no. 1 ). At that time it was agreed between them that the loan would be interest free. But the defendant would carry on his cloth business in that room and the amount of advance would- be adjusted from the monthly rental of Rs. 8. 33 payable by the said defendant no. 1 and the period of monthly tenancy was fixed to run from 1st day to the last date of each month upon these terms. After the completion of the pucca construction, the defendant no. 1 was inducted as a monthly tenant in the suit premises and after that Rs. 250/-as rent payable by the defendant was adjusted from the advance of Rs. 1150/- and normally only Rs. 900/- was due to him. Subsequently, on 20th of Falgoon 1366 B. S. corresponding to 4th of March, 1960 the parties executed and registered one lease indenture in duplicate and there the parties came to terms that the defendant no. 1 would occupy the suit premises upto 1375 B. S. as tempoary ejectable bharatia tenant. It appears that Balaram Chandra had brought one suit against the defendant no. 1 which was ultimately dismissed. He thereafter sold the suit premises to the present plaintiffs and the present plaintiffs brought suit against Nikhil Chandra Dey original owner. 2. THE suit -was contested by the defendant no. 1 only who filed a lengthy written statement and during the trial the learned advocate mainly relied upon two provisions of relevant statute; One is contained in sub-section 6 of section 13 and the other is contained in section 4 (3a) of the West Beng-al premises Tenancy Act. His points of defence are that the defendant no. 1 only who filed a lengthy written statement and during the trial the learned advocate mainly relied upon two provisions of relevant statute; One is contained in sub-section 6 of section 13 and the other is contained in section 4 (3a) of the West Beng-al premises Tenancy Act. His points of defence are that the defendant no. 1 is the tenant in respect of the suit property and as such he is entitled to a notice as contemplated in section 13 (6)and that the plaintiffs being the purchasers of the suit premises cannot bring the suit before expiry of three years of their purchase. Secondly, the question was that as the notice under section 13 (6) as contemplated therein has not been given, the suit is not maintainable. It was held by the court of first instance that section 4 (3a) of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act is not applicable inasmuch as no decree was given for the reasonable requirement. The appellate Court gave a decree under section 13 (1) (k) of the Act. 3. MISS. Chaturvedi relied upon a case reported in 69 C. W. N. 568 at pages 573 and 574 where the Hon'ble single judge was considering the question to section 13 (j) and (k) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. It will be clear that his Lordship was considering the matter coming under section it (3) of the Act. In the judgment Itself at page 574 his Lordship said that "it will not be necessary further at this stage to decide the question of interpretation, that is, section 13 (1) (j) and (k)of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy act and that will await the decision of the trial court in the suit. " It is, therefore, clear from the judgment itself that his Lordship's view was by way of obiter. In a case reported in 1978 (1)C. L. J. 186 his Lordship was considering the notice under section 13 (6), when ejectment was sought in section 13 (j)and (k ). It is clear from the said section that no notice is required under section 13 (j) and (k) of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act. In a case reported in 1978 (1)C. L. J. 186 his Lordship was considering the notice under section 13 (6), when ejectment was sought in section 13 (j)and (k ). It is clear from the said section that no notice is required under section 13 (j) and (k) of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act. Assuming for a moment that notice is given, that does not mean in my opinion that as because notice was given under section 13 (6)of the Act, it goes beyond the purview of section 13 (1) (j) or (k ). In such case the notice is more or less courtesy notice and it is not necessary at all under section 13 (6) of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act. 4. MR. Banerjee on behalf of the respondents however contended that there was no fresh lease and it was the continuation of old, lease. In reply to the said argument of Mr. Banerjee, miss. Chaturvedi contended that the earlier notice under section 106 of the transfer of Property Act was given and the notice determines the tenancy. In a case reported in A. I. R. 1979 S. C. it has been held that no notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is required in the case coming under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy act because no landlord is entitled to a decree unless he or she comes with in the mischief of section 13 of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act. In than view of the matter, in my opinion, the notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act does not, in any case in view of the Supreme Court decision, determine the tenancy coming under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Be that as it may, from the document (Ext. 2) it is clear that the tenancy which was continuing long before, continued for another nine years and the only thing relevant in the document is a loan of Rs. 1150/- and repayment of the loan by way of instalment for nine years. It is clear from the said document that on the expiry of nine years the parties had agreed that the tenancy would come to an end. or, in other words, the notice under section 13 (i) (k) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act is not required. Miss. It is clear from the said document that on the expiry of nine years the parties had agreed that the tenancy would come to an end. or, in other words, the notice under section 13 (i) (k) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act is not required. Miss. Chaturvedi has, however, contended that this is a new tenancy and not continuance of old one. In a similar case reported in I. L. R. 1967 (1) Calcutta, 438 at page 440 P. N. Mookerjee and Gupta, JJ held as follows :- "On the first question it is enough to point out that, by or under the agreement (Ext. 1), the original tenancy of the defendant was accepted as subsisting on the date of the said document and was continued by the same for the period, mentioned therein. This is clear from the use of the expression "the said Amal Dutta has been monthly tenant of the said premises under the said Receiver", which postulates that the defendant's old tenancy was accepted as continuing. There was, therefore, no creation of any fresh tenancy by this document (Ext. 1) and, indeed, the matter is made clear by the parties' conduct, which shows that the tenancy of the defendant up till its termination in terms of the said agreement, was a monthly tenancy according to the English calendar month and not a tenancy starting on and from september 6, 1960, which was the date of the above document. This is also corroborated by the defendant's attitude, as expressed in his written statement, where, in para. 7, he accepts the plaintiff's allegations in para. 2 of the plaint, which proceeds on the footing of the defendant's old or pre-existing tenancy prior to September 6, 1960, and affirms that the defendant was a tenant on a rental of Rs. 200 per month, payable according to the english calendar month. In the circumstances, the first of the above two pleas of Mr. Bhattacharyya must be rejected." In that view of the matter in my opinion there is no merit in the contentions of Miss. Chaturvedi. It must be said that in consideration of the lease that it comes within the mischief of section 13 (1) (k) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, the defendant tenant is liable to be evicted. Bhattacharyya must be rejected." In that view of the matter in my opinion there is no merit in the contentions of Miss. Chaturvedi. It must be said that in consideration of the lease that it comes within the mischief of section 13 (1) (k) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, the defendant tenant is liable to be evicted. The appeal is therefore dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the appellate court are affirmed. 5. IN view of the fact that it is not possible for the present moment to find out alternative accommodation, I give the defendant appellant six months time from today to vacate the premises. The plaintiff-respondents will be entitled to execute the decree just on the expiry of six months as aforesaid. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal.