JUDGMENT : Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. 1. This appeal would relate to an eviction decree dated September 27, 1993 passed by the learned City Civil Court Calcutta wherein the learned Judge directed eviction of the appellant hence, this appeal. Cursory glance to the Plaint would reveal, the plaintiff became the owner of the premises No. 8 Collin Street, Calcutta by virtue of a Deed of Gift dated August 11, 1972. At the relevant time, the defendant therein was a monthly tenant in respect of one room in the ground floor at a monthly rent of Rs. 32 per month. The respondent/plaintiff determined the tenancy vide notice to quit dated January 23, 1984 and asked the plaintiff to hand over vacant and peaceful possession. The appellant did not do so resulting in filing of the suit. The notice was issued under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 read with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The appellant replied to the said notice as we find from the evidence. It transpired the appellant duly replied to the notice to quit through her advocate. The appellant contested the suit by filing Written Statement. She denied, she was a defaulter. She also denied, the plaintiff reasonably required the premises. According to her, the portion under occupation of the plaintiff was sufficient enough to cater to her. On the notice, the appellant contended: The said eviction notice was not properly served nor the said notice is valid, legal and sufficient. 2. During evidence, the plaintiff examined herself. She proved her ownership, she also proved her requirement. She would contend, she was having only one bedroom at her disposal, her two married daughters could not be accommodated in the house while visiting matrimonial home. One daughter working with Indian Oxygen was residing with her. She did not have any other independent room. Only other room she had in her possession was being used for worship (Thakur Ghar). She used to cook her food on the balcony, however, during monsoon season, she would have to shift her cooking well within the bedroom. 3. On the notice, she categorically contended, the appellant gave a reply to the same. During cross-examination, she narrated, how she became the owner of the premises in question. She also gave details of other tenants residing in the same house. 3. On the notice, she categorically contended, the appellant gave a reply to the same. During cross-examination, she narrated, how she became the owner of the premises in question. She also gave details of other tenants residing in the same house. She admitted, she did not file any other eviction proceeding against the other tenants. Her two daughters were unmarried at the time of the filing of the suit. 4. The plaintiff also examined the Advocate-Commissioner who conducted the local inspection. During cross-examination, she categorically contended, the requirement of the plaintiff as she found during inspection, were detailed in the report. The defendant examined himself. He contended, the room was used by him as a shop after obtaining appropriate trade license from the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. During cross-examination, he admitted, he was residing in the same room with his son. He also admitted, she had no knowledge of the place of residence of the mother-in-law of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also examined the registered clerk of the advocate who sent the notice under registered post. He proved the registration receipt. During cross-examination, he denied of having no knowledge of preparation of the notice. 5. The Judgment and Decree: The learned Judge considered the pleadings and the issues framed. On the notice, the learned Judge held, the exhibit 2 was a photocopy of the notice, the defendant sent a reply to the same hence, the provisions of Section 13(6) and Section 106 were duly complied with. 6. On the relationship of the landlord and tenant, the learned Judge held, the defendant accepted the plaintiff as his landlady. He deposited rent in her name. The pleadings would also suggest so. Hence, the relationship was established. 7. On the reasonable requirement, learned Judge considered the evidence as well as the local inspection report and came to conclusion, the plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises. The learned Judge also rejected the contentions of the defendant that the plaintiff made a selective exercise of choice in filing the suit by excusing the other tenants. The learned Judge held, the exercise of the discretion could not be called in question unless anything mala-fide could be proved. Learned Judge decreed the suit and asked the defendant to vacate the premises hence, this appeal. 8. The learned Judge held, the exercise of the discretion could not be called in question unless anything mala-fide could be proved. Learned Judge decreed the suit and asked the defendant to vacate the premises hence, this appeal. 8. Contentions : Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant raised the following issues: (i) The plaintiff failed to prove her ownership that would preclude her from getting the decree for recovery of possession. (ii) The plaintiff miserably failed to prove service of notice to quit. (iii) The description of the property being vague in the schedule, the decree so passed could not be executed and as such liable to be quashed. (iv) The plaintiff did not disclose particulars of the other tenants and excused the other tenants that would make the decree vulnerable. (v) The plaintiff contended, mother-in-law would need a room whereas during evidence it transpired, she was staying somewhere else. 9. To support her contention, learned Counsel relied on the following decisions:- 1. Kailash Narayan Deewan v. Baboolal Suresh Chand reported in, All India Reporter 1990 Madhya Pradesh Page-262. 2. Mano Ranjan Dasgupta v. Suchitra Ganguly and Others reported in, Calcutta Law Journal 1988 Volume 1 page-250. 3. Biswajit Chakraborty v. Mitra Sen Ray reported in, Calcutta Law journal 2002 Volume 2 page-449. 4. Tarak Nath Sha v. Bhutoria Brothers Private Limited and Tarak Nath Sha v. Manmal Bhutoria and Another reported in Calcutta High Court Notes, 2004 Volume 1 page-142. 5. Deep Chandra Juneja v. Lajwanti Kathuria (Smt.) (dead) through Lrs. reported in, Supreme Court Cases 2008 Volume-viii page-497. 6. Smt. Sheela Chadha and others v. Dr. Achharaj Ram Seghal reported in, Supreme Court Cases 1990 page-736. 10. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would make submissions to support the decree. According to him, the tenant could not have any authority to challenge the ownership of the landlord. The landlord was having the discretion to make choice between one tenant and the other to satisfy his need while filing the suit for eviction. On the issue of notice, he contended, notice was duly served. The defendant replied to the same through his advocate. He prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. While giving reply, the learned Counsel contended, the respondent did not deal with the points raised by her. 12. Our View: The ownership of the landlord could not be questioned by a tenant claiming title under him. The defendant replied to the same through his advocate. He prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. While giving reply, the learned Counsel contended, the respondent did not deal with the points raised by her. 12. Our View: The ownership of the landlord could not be questioned by a tenant claiming title under him. In the present case, the letter of attornment was duly issued in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The appellant accepted her as his landlord and duly paid rent till the tenancy was terminated. Moreover, when the respondent declined to accept rent, as contended by the appellant, he went on depositing the same in the name of the respondent that would prove the relationship. The issue raised on such score would thus have no basis whatsoever. 13. The learned Counsel strenuously contended, notice was not served. Her contentions at the bar would have no support from the record. In the Written Statement, the appellant intelligently dealt with the issue and contended, notice was not "properly served." All the postal receipts were tendered as exhibit being exhibit 1 collectively. From the order sheet, it appears, by an order dated September 24, 1993 the learned Judge recorded: The learned lawyer for the defendants submits that he has no objection if the reply given by his client to the notice of ejectment is marked exhibit by waiving its formal proof. Let the documents be marked exhibit on the side of the plaintiff by waiving its formal proof. 14. We wonder, how the appellant could raise the issue of non-service after such categorical recording before the Court below. Pertinent to note, the defendant never challenged such recording, at least, we do not find any such assertion or reflection in the case records. The issue is thus rejected. 15. On the description of the property, we find no miss-description. In any event, the Advocate-Commissioner proved her report. The defendant also admitted the extent of tenancy, he was enjoying. There could not be any confusion on the issue. 16. On the reasonable requirement, we find from the deposition of the appellant, he could not prove the assertion, mother-in-law was staying outside. On the contrary, he admitted, he did not have any knowledge about the same. Hence, on factual score, we do not find any scope of interference. 17. There could not be any confusion on the issue. 16. On the reasonable requirement, we find from the deposition of the appellant, he could not prove the assertion, mother-in-law was staying outside. On the contrary, he admitted, he did not have any knowledge about the same. Hence, on factual score, we do not find any scope of interference. 17. On the notice issue the learned Counsel relied on three Calcutta decisions which are as follows:- (i) Mano Ranjan Dasgupta v. Suchitra Ganguly and Others reported in, Calcutta Law Journal 1988 Volume 1 page-250. (ii) Biswajit Chakraborty v. Mitra Sen Ray reported in, Calcutta Law Journal 2002 volume 2 page-449. (iii) Tarak Nath Sha v. Bhutoria Brothers Private Limited and Tarak Nath Sha v. Manmal Bhutoria and Another reported in, Calcutta High Court Notes 2004 Volume 1 page-142. 18. In the case of Mano Ranjan Dasgupta (supra), the service of the notice was not proved. Notice came back un-served with the remarked "Door of the office was always closed". Another notice came back with the remarked "refused". In view of the inconsistent recording, the Division Bench observed, when a notice was served by post an obligatory presumption of due service would arise. However, when there is no compulsion of sending a notice by registered post yet the presumption under Section 114 was not an obvious consequence. It would depend upon the facts and circumstances. In that case, the Division Bench held, the presumption stood rebutted for non-examination of the postal peon or omission to prove the tender of the registered cover by the postman. 19. In the case of Biswajit Chakraborty (supra), learned Single Judge of this Court held, a photocopy of the document could not be used as a primary evidence. 20. In the case of Tarak Nath Sha (supra), the Division Bench observed, when a particular document was required to be proved the burden would be rely upon him who is relying on the same. Presumption of proper post and service could not be had on a mere presentation of the acknowledgement due card in absence of the registration receipt. 21. None of the aforesaid three decisions would have any application in the present case. By the order dated September 24, 1993 by consent of parties, the photocopy of the reply was tendered as exhibit. Presumption of proper post and service could not be had on a mere presentation of the acknowledgement due card in absence of the registration receipt. 21. None of the aforesaid three decisions would have any application in the present case. By the order dated September 24, 1993 by consent of parties, the photocopy of the reply was tendered as exhibit. Once the reply got exhibited, there was no need of proof of service of the notice to quit as presumption was an obvious consequence. 22. In the matter of Kailash Narayan Deewan (supra), learned Single Judge held, the admission of the respondent would itself establish relationship of landlord tenant. In that case, the plaintiff filed a regular civil suit wherein a compromise was entered into between the parties. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction on bona fide requirement of his own. The tenant disputed the relationship that the learned Judge rejected. 23. In the case of Smt. Sheela Chadha and others (supra), the Apex Court observed, the law grants a fair amount of discretion to the landlord to determine his needs when asking the vacation of tenanted premises. The only check is, that must have the ground and the need should be bona fide. 24. The ratio decided in the cases cited above, would rather support our view expressed herein before that would rather strengthen our ultimate decision. 25. The appeal thus fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. Appeal fails.