1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment of a kaimi raiyat, on the ground that he had broken a condition of the contract on breach of which he was under the terms of a contract between him and the landlord liable to ejectment, after service of a notice purporting to have been given under Section 155 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.
2. The Courts below concurred in dismissing the suit on the ground that the notice was not valid, and the plaintiff has appealed to this Court.
3. Section 155 of the Bengal Tenancy Act lays down that a suit for ejectment of a tenant on the ground that he has broken a condition of the contract under which he is liable to be ejected, shall not be entertained, unless the landlord has served a notice on the tenant specifying the particular breach complained of, and where it is capable of remedy requiring the tenant to remedy the same, and in any case to pay reasonable compensation for the breach, and the tenant has failed to comply within a reasonable time with that request.
4. The notice in the present case required the defendant to remove the houses, etc., within a month, to give up the land and to pay Rs. 100 as damages. It is contended that the requisition to quit the land is merely a surplusage and does not vitiate the notice. But the notice to give up the land was not even conditional on the failure of the tenant to remove the houses, etc., and pay compensation but unconditionally called upon the tenant to quit the land after removing the houses, etc., and pay Rs. 100 as damages. The object of a notice to quit given under Section 155 is to give the tenant an opportunity, of remedying the breach (if it is capable of being remedied); so that on remedying the breach and on payment of a reasonable compensation he may avoid ejectment. Under the notice given in the present case, the tenant was required to quit the land even if he remedied the breach. Under the circumstances we are of opinion that the Courts below are right in holding that it was not a proper notice under Section 155 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.
5. Our attention was called by the learned Pleader for the appellants to Section 14 of the English Convincing Act, 1881, and to the cases of Pennell v. City of London Brewery Company (1900) 1 Ch. 496 : 69 L.J.Ch. 244 : 48 W.R. 264 : 82 L.T. 53 : 16 T.L.R. 152 and Lock v. Pearce (1893) 2 Ch. 271 : 62 L.J.Ch. 582 : 2 R. 403 : 68 L.T. 569 : 41 W.R. 369 decided under it. The words of the first portion of Section 155 of the Bengal Tenancy Act are practically the same as those of the first portion of Section 14 of the English Statute, but the latter portion of Section 14, as pointed out by Trevelyan, J., in Pershad Singh v. Ram, Pertab Roy 22 C. 77, is wholly different and if intended for an entirely different purpose from the latter portion of Section 155, which provides for the nature of the decree. In the case of Lock v. Pearce (1893) 2 Ch. 271 : 62 L.J.Ch. 582 : 2 R. 403 : 68 L.T. 569 : 41 W.R. 369 it was held under the English Statute that the notice was not bad merely because it did not require payment of compensation in money, whereas in the case of Pershad Singh v. Ram Pertab Roy 22 C. 77 cited above, it was held by this Court the a notice under Section 155 not containing a re question to the tenant to pay compensation was insufficient to support a suit for ejectmem brought under the section. In the other case Pennell v. City of London Brewery Company (1900) 1 Ch. 496 : 69 L.J.Ch. 244 : 48 W.R. 264 : 82 L.T. 53 : 16 T. L.R. 152, it was merely held that a notice under Section 14 of the Convincing Act, 1881, referring to several distinct alleged breaches of covenant, is not invalidated in toto because it turns out that although some of the alleged breaches have occurred the others have never taken place, or that the lessor is not entitled to rely on them.
6. The cases cited do not support the contention that a notice which is virtually to quit the land after removal of the houses and to pay damages, is a valid notice under Section 155 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.
7. The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.