SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1965 Supreme(SC) 79

P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, V. RAMASWAMI, M. HIDAYATULLAH
Indra Kumar Karnani – Appellant
Versus
Atul Chandra Patitundi – Respondent


Advocates:
B.P.MAHESHVARI, M.C.CHAKRAVARTY, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN, S.MURTHY

Judgement

RAMASWAMI, J. : The sole question for determination in this appeal is whether respondent No. 2-Atul Chandra Patitundi is protected from being evicted by the landlord from the premises No. 90A, Harish Mukerjee Road situated in Bhawanipur, District 24-Parganas in view of the provisions enacted in S. 13 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 (West Bengal Act XVII of 1950), hereinafter called the 1950 Act.

2. Sometime before 1948, respondent No. 2 was inducted as a monthly tenant under Rai Sahib Chandan Mal Inder Kumar, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant. One of the conditions of the lease was that the tenant will not sub-let the premises or any portion thereof. As respondent No. 2 defaulted in the payment of rent the appellant made an application under S. 14 of the Calcutta Rent Ordinance, 1946 for permission to sue him for eviction. The application was granted by the Second Additional Rent Controller on September 10, 1948. On December 1, 1948, the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948 (West Bengal Act XXXVIII of 1948), hereinafter called the 1948 Act, came into force. On September 15, 1949 the appel























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top