JUDGMENT TAPAN KUMAR DUTT, J. This Court has heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and has considered the materials on record. 2. The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows: The respondents in the instant appeal were plaintiffs in the suit for eviction brought against the defendant/appellant. The said suit was numbered as Ejectment Suit No.1355 of 1976 and was subsequently re-numbered as Ejectment Suit No. 2073 of 2000 and the said suit was placed before the learned 5th Bench, Small Causes Court at Calcutta. 3. The plaintiffs in the said suit prayed, inter alia, for khas possession of the suit premises against the defendant/appellant. The plaintiffs’ case was that the defendant was a monthly tenant under the plaintiffs in respect of one upper flat, one lower flat and a shop room at premises No.2, Draper Lane, Calcutta-69 at a monthly rental of Rs.275/- per month payable according to the English Calendar and the said tenancy was determined by appropriate notice under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and such notice was served upon the defendant. The plaintiffs’ further case was that the defendant had earlier obtained relief in respect of his tenancy under Section 17(4) of the said Act of 1956 in connection with the Ejectment Suit No.65 of 1970. However, according to the plaintiffs, the defendant again committed default for four months within a period of 12 months and, thus, the defendant is not entitled to get any protection from eviction as contemplated under the proviso to Section 17(4) of the said Act of 1956. 4. The defendant/appellant contested the said suit by filing written statement and additional written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint. The defendant disputed the maintainability of the suit and also the legality and validity of the notice under Section 13(6) of the said Act of 1956. The case of the defendant was that the defendant is a tenant under the plaintiffs in respect of the entire suit property except one small room on the road side and the defendant has been running his business in the suit premises. The defendant could not deposit rent of the suit premises from February 1975 to May 1976 due to the negligence of the agent of the defendant. The defendant could not deposit rent of the suit premises from February 1975 to May 1976 due to the negligence of the agent of the defendant. But, the defendant has made some of the payments of taxes to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation in order to pay off the liability of the plaintiffs and the defendant had claimed adjustments with the arrears of rent and, therefore, the defendant should not be held to be a defaulter in payment of rent. 5. The said suit came up for hearing when evidence was adduced on behalf of the respective parties and the learned trial Court by judgment and decree dated 27th February, 2001 decreed the said suit and directed that the plaintiffs do get a decree against the defendant for eviction and recovery of khas possession of the suit premises. The learned trial Court directed the defendant to vacate the suit premises within a stipulated period of time. 6. The learned trial Court found that there is no dispute that the plaintiffs became the owners in respect of the entire suit property and the defendant firm has been a tenant in the tenanted premises since 1943 and certain rent receipt dated 8.6.1943 (being Ext. B) and a letter issued to the defendant firm on behalf of the plaintiffs which was dated 31.8.1943 (being Ext. C) go to show that the defendant firm has been a tenant in respect of the entire suit property except one shop room on the ground floor of the said property. The learned trial Court further found that the plaintiffs instituted a title suit No. 1226 of 1973 against the defendant firm before the City Civil Court at Calcutta for recovery of khas possession of some portion of the suit property alleged to be possessed by the defendant firm as a trespasser and the copy of the plaint of the said title suit No. 1266 of 1973 (Ext. A) indicates the number of rooms under the occupation of the defendant firm as trespasser but since the said suit (T.S.No.1266 of 1973) was withdrawn by the plaintiff the learned trial Court was not inclined to rely on the plaint of the said T.S. No.1266 of 1973 for determining the extent of tenancy of the defendant firm. 7. A) indicates the number of rooms under the occupation of the defendant firm as trespasser but since the said suit (T.S.No.1266 of 1973) was withdrawn by the plaintiff the learned trial Court was not inclined to rely on the plaint of the said T.S. No.1266 of 1973 for determining the extent of tenancy of the defendant firm. 7. The learned trial Court found that the counter-foil of the rent receipt dated 27.07.1963 (Ext.3) indicates that the defendant firm has been a tenant in respect of the upper flat, lower flat and one shop room in the suit property and also the copy of the application submitted before the Rent Controller, Calcutta by the defendant firm for depositing rent (Ext.5) indicates that the defendant firm has been a tenant in respect of one upper flat, one lower flat and one shop room at premises No.2 Draper Lane, Calcutta-69 and the learned trial Court ultimately came to the conclusion that the defendant firm has been a tenant under the plaintiffs in respect of the suit premises as described in the plaint, that is, one upper flat, one lower flat and one shop room at premises No.2, Draper Lane Calcutta-700001. The learned trial Court came to the finding that the notice of eviction was duly served by the plaintiffs upon the defendant prior to the institution of the suit and the defendant firm gave a reply to such notice. The learned trial Court did not find substance in the allegation made by the defendant that the said notice of eviction was bad in law and invalid only because extent of tenancy was not properly indicated in the said notice as the learned trial Court was of the view that the tenant was fully aware of the extent of tenancy being fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned trial Court found that the notice to quit was legal, valid, proper and sufficient. 8. The learned trial Court considered the fact that the plaintiff had earlier instituted Ejectment Suit No.65 of 1970 against the defendant for eviction and recovery of khas possession of the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of rent and subletting. The learned trial Court found that the notice to quit was legal, valid, proper and sufficient. 8. The learned trial Court considered the fact that the plaintiff had earlier instituted Ejectment Suit No.65 of 1970 against the defendant for eviction and recovery of khas possession of the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of rent and subletting. But, it appears from Ext.12 and also from Exts.2 and 2/a (certified copy of judgment and decree passed in Ejectment Suit No.65 of 1970) that the said suit was dismissed as the defendant had deposited the arrears of rent and thus, the defendant got relief under Section 17(4) of the said Act of 1956. With regard to the allegation of default in payment of rent in the present suit the learned trial Court found that the defendant has admitted the fact of default of payment of rent from February 1975 to May 1976 and it further appeared to the learned trial Court that the certificate issued by the Rent Controller, Calcutta on 12.11.1976 (Ext.6) indicates that the defendant did not deposit any rent with the Rent Controller, Calcutta from June, 1975 to February, 1976. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that it has no hesitation to hold that the defendant defaulted in making payment of rent for the second time for more than six months within a period of 12 months. With regard to the defendant’s allegation of adjustment of arrears of rent with Municipal Taxes paid by the defendant, the learned trial Court found that in the absence of any agreement for adjustment of rent with the taxes paid to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation by the defendant it is not possible to hold that the defendant is entitled to get any adjustment of the Municipal Taxes paid by the defendant against the rent payable by the defendant. The learned trial Court took into consideration the fact that the defendant had instituted a S.C.C. suit No.304 of 1974 against the plaintiff for recovery of the amount of tax paid by the defendant to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. But, ultimately the said defendant had withdrawn the said suit on the ground that the defendant would not be able to adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim for recovery of the amount of tax allegedly paid by the defendant to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. But, ultimately the said defendant had withdrawn the said suit on the ground that the defendant would not be able to adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim for recovery of the amount of tax allegedly paid by the defendant to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the defendant is not entitled to get any relief under Section 17(4) of the said Act of 1956 and the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree for eviction and recovery of khas possession of the suit premises against the defendant. 9. The defendant challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and preferred Title Appeal No.11 of 2001 which was placed before the learned 5th Bench of the City Civil Court, Calcutta. The learned First Appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 28.08.2002 dismissed the said title appeal No.11 of 2001. 10. The learned First Appellate Court found that there is no dispute that the plaintiffs became owners of the entire suit property. The learned First Appellate Court also found that the defendant has been a tenant since 1943 and the said title suit No.1266 of 1973 was for recovery of khas possession of some portion of the suit property which was allegedly possessed by the defendant as trespasser. But the said suit was withdrawn by the plaintiffs and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the proceedings in the said suit for the purpose of determining the extent of tenancy. The learned First Appellate Court found from the counter-foil of the rent receipt dated 27.02.1967 (Ext.3) that the defendant has been a tenant in respect of the upper flat, lower flat and one shop room in the suit property, and the aforesaid application filed by the defendant before the Rent Controller, Calcutta also shows that the defendant firm as has been a tenant in respect of the upper flat, lower flat and one shop room at premises No.2 Draper Lane, Calcutta-69. The learned First Appellate Court, considering the materials on record, fully agreed with the learned trial Court that the extent of tenancy of the defendant was as it is indicated in the schedule of the plaint. The learned First Appellate Court, considering the materials on record, fully agreed with the learned trial Court that the extent of tenancy of the defendant was as it is indicated in the schedule of the plaint. The learned First Appellate Court also agreed with the finding of the learned trial Court that if the defendant is in occupation of any portion of the suit property by way of encroachment which is beyond the purview of the suit premises, the defendant had become a tenant of the said portion of the suit property under the plaintiffs. 11. The learned First Appellate Court also agreed with the finding of the learned trial Court that the notice under 13(6) of the said Act of 1956 was quite legal, valid and proper and it was served upon the defendant. The learned First Appellate Court was also of the view that in absence of any agreement for adjustment of rent with taxes paid to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation by the defendant it cannot be said that the defendant is entitled to get any such adjustment of the said amount of taxes with the rent payable by the defendant. The learned First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the defendant has committed default in payment of rent for the second time and as such the defendant is not entitled to get protection under Section 17(4) of the said Act of 1956. The learned First Appellate Court dismissed the said title appeal No.11 of 2001 with aforesaid findings. 12. The defendant/appellant has filed the instant second appeal and an Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court by order dated 13.05.2003 was pleased to admit the appeal for hearing “on the substantial question of law as formulated in Ground Nos. I, IV, V and X”. Thus, it may be stated that the aforesaid grounds have been treated to be substantial questions of law involved in the present appeal. The said Ground Nos. I, IV, V and X are quoted below: “I. For that both the Learned Courts below while passing the impugned judgment and decree erred in law in not considering the rent receipt dated 08.06.1943 being exhibit “B” and also the letter dated 31.08.1943, being exhibit “C” from which it is crystal clear that the Appellant/Defendant is the tenant in respect of the entire premises No.2, Draper Lane, Calcutta-700069 except one shop room in the ground floor. IV. For that the Learned Courts below ought to have held that the suit is not maintainable on the ground that the notice of Ejectment is bad in as much as the tenancy of the Appellant/Defendant has not been properly described, accordingly, both the Learned Courts below have failed to consider the material point of law that a Decree cannot be passed when the tenancy of the Appellant/Defendant has not been properly described in the plaint. V. For that both the Learned Courts below ought to have taken into consideration the facts pleaded in the plaint of the Title Suit No.1266 of 1973, being exhibit “A”, which indicated the extent of tenancy under occupation of the Appellant/Defendant. X. For that both the Learned Courts below erred in law in not considering the material fact that the Appellant/Defendant is not a defaulter in payment of rent in as much as they are entitled to get adjustment of the amount paid to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation on account of Corporation tax of the said building for and on behalf of the Respondents/Plaintiffs with the monthly rent, particularly when the amount was paid to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation pursuant to the demand notice sent by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation to the Appellant/Defendant.” 13. The learned Advocate for the defendant/appellant submitted that the defendant/appellant has been a tenant in respect of the entire premises and the description of the tenancy indicated in the plaint and in the eviction notice is not correct. According to the said learned Advocate for the defendant/appellant, the tenancy has not been properly described in the said notice and also in the plaint. He further submitted that the aforesaid title suit No.1266 of 1973 would indicate the extent of tenancy involved in the dispute. His further submission was that the rents payable by the defendant were required to be adjusted with the amounts paid by the defendant on account of Municipal Taxes to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. The said learned Advocate for the defendant/appellant further submitted that the landlord has to prove service of valid notice upon the tenant. His submission was that before the Court can hold that the tenant is not entitled to get protection under Section 17(4) of the said Act of 1956 the Court has come to a conclusion that the second default in payment of rent has been committed in respect of the same premises. His submission was that before the Court can hold that the tenant is not entitled to get protection under Section 17(4) of the said Act of 1956 the Court has come to a conclusion that the second default in payment of rent has been committed in respect of the same premises. The said learned Advocate for the appellant relied upon Exts. A, B and C in support of his submission with regard to the extent of tenancy. The said learned Advocate also submitted that the learned Court below took a contradictory view in as much as the learned Court below was not inclined to rely upon the plaint of title suit No.1266 of 1973 but at the same time it took into consideration the filing of the S.C.C. suit No. 304 of 1974 which was also withdrawn by the defendant/appellant. 14. The learned Advocate for the defendant/appellant cited a decision reported at 60 CWN 1006 (Chandrakanto Goswami –V- Ram Mohini Debi & Ors.) in support of his contention that mere withdrawal of a suit does not destroy the effect of an admission made therein. The said learned Advocate submitted that the pleadings in the plaint of the said title suit 1266 of 1973 with regard to the extent of occupation by the defendant should have been taken into consideration. 15. The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported at 72 CWN 867 (Mahammed Seraj -V- Adibar Rahaman Sheikh & Ors.) in support of his contention that mere withdrawal of a suit does not destroy the effect of an admission made in the plaint thereof so long as such admission is not rebutted. 16. The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported at AIR 1985 Supreme Court 136 (Chimanlal -V- Mishrilal) in support of his contention that where the eviction notice does not relate to the entire accommodation let to the tenant but only to a part of it, it must be held that such notice is invalid and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. 17. 17. The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported at 2001(3) SCC 179 (Santosh Hazari -V- Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by Lrs.) & 2008(9) SCC 694 (New India Cooperative Housing Society Limited –V- Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr.) in support of his submission that even where the learned First Appellate Court agrees with the findings of the learned Trial Court a duty is cast upon the learned First Appellate Court to apply its mind consciously to the facts and circumstances of the case and such conscious application of mind should be reflected in the judgment. 18. The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported 2010(11) SCC 483 (Bharatha Matha & Anr. -V- R. Vijaya Renganathan & Ors.) in support of his submission that if the findings made by the learned Courts below are perverse, such findings can be challenged in second appeal as it becomes a substantial question of law. The learned Advocate for the defendant/appellant thus submitted that the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below should be set aside and the suit for eviction should be dismissed. 19. The learned Advocate for the plaintiffs/respondents submitted that the defendant did not dispute the extent of tenancy as indicated in the said Ejectment Suit No.65 of 1970 and that the schedule in the said title suit No.1266 of 1973 will not tally with the schedule of the present plaint because the said title suit No.1266 of 1973 was a suit for eviction against a trespasser. The said learned Advocate submitted that in view of Ext.5 which is an application before the Rent Controller the defendant/appellant cannot be permitted to dispute the extent of tenancy. According to the said learned Advocate, the said Ext.5 clearly supports the extent of tenancy as indicated in the present suit. 20. The said learned Advocate for the plaintiffs/respondents referred to a decision reported 2001(3) SCC 179 and referred to Paragraph 12 and 14 of the said reports in support of his contention that the question of extent of tenancy cannot be a substantial question of law. It appears from Paragraph 12 of the said reports that the Hon’ble Court has observed that the word ‘substantial’ as qualifying ‘question of law’ means – of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable. It appears from Paragraph 12 of the said reports that the Hon’ble Court has observed that the word ‘substantial’ as qualifying ‘question of law’ means – of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable. In paragraph 14 of the said reports it has been observed by the Hon’ble Court that to be a substantial question of law it must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. 21. The said learned Advocate for the plaintiffs/respondents submitted that the learned Courts below could not have relied on the plaint of title suit No. 1266 of 1973 as the said suit was a suit for eviction of trespasser and, therefore, the property described in the said suit was different from the tenancy in question. 22. The said learned Advocate for the plaintiffs/respondents cited a decision reported at 69 CWN 541 (Ganesh Chandra Mukherjee -V- Bhargabi Debi & Ors.) in support of his contention that the occupier’s share of municipal rates would be payable by the tenant or the occupier in the absence of any agreement to the contrary. In the present case, the said learned Advocate submitted, there was no such agreement to the contrary and, therefore, the liability for the occupier’s share of rates could be on the defendant and not on the plaintiffs and the defendant would not be entitled to get any adjustment against rents, payable by the defendant, by reason of discharge of such liability (occupier’s share of taxes) on his part. 23. The said learned Advocate submitted that there is no merit in the said second appeal which should be dismissed. 24. The submission of the learned Advocate for the defendant/appellant that the defendant/appellant has been a tenant in respect of the entire premises and the description of the tenancy indicated in the plaint and in the eviction notice is not correct cannot be accepted in view of the materials on record. Even in the copy of the plaint in Title Suit No.1266 of 1973(Ext. Even in the copy of the plaint in Title Suit No.1266 of 1973(Ext. A), which according to the said learned Advocate should have been considered by the learned Courts below, it had been stated by the plaintiff of the said suit that the defendant in the said suit was holding the tenancy under the said plaintiff in respect of one upper flat, lower flat and a shop room at premises No.2 Draper Lane, P.S. Hare Street, Calcutta-700001. It will further appear from the said Ext. A that the said suit was filed as the defendant in the said suit, that is, the appellant in the present second appeal had trespassed into portions of the suit holding which were beyond the tenancy of the appellant and the said suit was a suit for recovery of possession in respect of the portions of the property which were allegedly and forcibly occupied by the appellant herein as a trespasser. It will appear from the Ext. 3 that even in the year 1967 the defendant/appellant was a tenant in respect of the suit property as described in the schedule of the plaint in the present suit. It will appear from the Ext. 5 which was an application made by the appellant before the Rent Controller, Calcutta sometime in the year 1973 that the applicant clearly stated therein that it was a tenant in respect of one upper flat, lower flat and one shop room at premises No. 2 Draper Lane, P.S. Hare Street, Calcutta. Thus, it will appear that the appellant had admitted the fact that it has been a tenant in respect of the suit property as described in the plaint of the present suit. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the said Exits. B and C are connected with the present parties to the present suit, such document pertain to the year 1943. It may very well be that the parties have thereafter agreed to cause a change in the description of the tenancy, a change in the extent of tenancy and, thus, we find that in the year 1967 the tenancy of the appellant was described to be one upper flat, one lower flat and a shop room at the premises No.2 Draper Lane, Calcutta. As already pointed out earlier, the appellant himself admitted such description of the tenancy in its application before the Rent Controller in the year 1973. In the plaint of title suit No.1266 of 1973 the plaintiffs had also described the tenancy as mentioned in the present plaint of the present suit out of which the present second appeal arises. Thus, this Court does not find any merit in the submission of the learned Advocate for the defendant/appellant that there has been a wrong description of tenancy in the plaint of the present suit and the eviction notice concerned. This Court is of the view that the decisions cited by the learned Advocate for the appellant in support of his contention that mere withdrawal of a suit does not destroy the effect of an admission made therein, cannot be of any assistance to the appellant in the present case as this Court finds that even in the said plaint of T.S. 1266 of 1973 the plaintiffs in the said suit had stated that the tenancy of the appellant herein was in respect of the upper flat, lower flat and one shop room and the said suit was filed on the allegation that the present appellant had trespassed into other portions of the premises concerned. The decisions cited by the learned Advocate for the appellant in support of his contention that where the eviction notice does not relate to the entire accommodation let out to the tenant but only to a part of it, it is not a valid notice and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable, also cannot be of any assistance to the appellant in the present case as this Court finds that in the facts and circumstances of the present case it cannot be said that the eviction notice did not relate to the entire accommodation let out to the appellant. The decisions cited by the learned Advocate for the appellant with regard to the duty cast upon the learned First Appellate Court also cannot be of any assistance to the appellant in the present case as it appears that the learned First Appellate Court has made a conscious application of his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and it has considered the relevant materials on record while affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. It will appear from the Ext. It will appear from the Ext. 7 (eviction notice dated 08.09.1976) that the description of the suit premises was described to be the upper flat, lower flat and a shop room at premises No.2 Draper Lane, Calcutta-69 but in the reply to such notice the defendant did not in any way deny the extent of tenancy indicated in the said Ext.7. Such reply on behalf of the defendant/appellant is Ext. 11. It appears from the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court that the said learned Court took into consideration the said Ext.11 apart from the other documents on record. 25. The submission made by the learned Advocate for the defendant/appellant that the municipal taxes paid by the defendant/appellant should have been adjusted against rents payable by the defendant/appellant is also without any substance. The learned Advocate for the plaintiffs/respondents had rightly submitted in this regard that unless there is any agreement to such effect the defendant/appellant cannot claim such adjustment. He rightly submitted that the occupier’s share of municipal taxes would have to be borne by the tenant and/or the occupier in the absence of any agreement to the contrary. This Court is also of the view that the learned Advocate for the plaintiffs/respondents was right in his submission that the question of extent of tenancy is basically a question of fact and such question cannot constitute a substantial question of law. In any event in the present case the defendant/appellant has admitted the extent of tenancy as described in the plaint of the present suit. 26. This Court is also of the view that the learned Advocate for the defendant/appellant was not correct in submitting, in the present case, that the findings made by the learned Courts below are perverse. This Court does not find any perversity in any of the findings made by the learned Courts below. 27. It appears from the Ext.2 which is the judgment in the said Ejectment Suit No.65 of 1970 that the learned trial Court in the said suit had observed that the default in payment of rent committed by the defendant in the said suit being the first default the said defendant is entitled to get protection under Section 17(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. It appears from the certified copy of the plaint of the said suit which is on record that the plaintiff had stated in Paragraph 2 of the said plaint that the defendant was a monthly tenant under the plaintiff in respect of one upper flat, one lower flat and a shop room at premises No.2 Draper Lane P.S. Hare Street, Calcutta. Thus, the argument made by the learned Advocate for the appellant that before the Court can hold that the tenant is not entitled to get protection under Section 17(4) of the said Act of 1956 the Court has to come to the conclusion that the second default in payment of rent has been committed in respect of the same premises cannot be of any assistance to the appellant in the present case. 28. In view of the discussions made above, this Court does not find any merit in the instant second appeal which is dismissed. 29. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 30. Let the lower court records be sent back to the learned Court concerned immediately. 31. Urgent certified Xerox copy of this judgment, if applied for, shall be given to the parties on compliance of all usual formalities. Later: 32. After the aforesaid judgment is delivered in open Court, the learned Advocate for the respondents submits that the lower court records should be sent back to the learned Court concerned by special messenger and the respondents shall put in the special messenger cost for such purpose. 33. In such circumstances, let the lower court records be sent back to the learned Court concerned by special messenger and the special messenger cost for such purpose shall be put in by the respondents within one week.