Back
A.C.GUPTA, P.K.GOSWAMI, Y.V.CHANDRACHUD
Ram Pasricha – Appellant
Versus
Jagannath – Respondent
JUDGMENT
GOSWAMI, J.:—This is an appeal by the defendant-tenant by certificate from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court. The question that arises for decision is whether a landlord who is a co-owner of the premises with others is "the owner" within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (briefly the Act). It will turn on the interpretation of the expression "if he is the owner" under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act.
2. Briefly the facts are as follows:-
3. The plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter to be referred to as the plaintiff) is admittedly the landlord of one late Bhagat Ram Pasricha predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant and respondents 2 and 3 (hereinafter to be referred to as the defendants). The tenancy was in respect of a part of the premises No. 221/1. Rash Behari Avenue, Calcutta, being the entire second floor of the building. The tenancy commenced some time in 1946 and Bhagat Ram Pasricha promised to vacate the said premises within March 31, 1947 and positively after March 31, 1948. Bhagat Ram Pasricha, however, did not vacate and died on February 18, 1960, leaving behindthe defendants as his heirs. The plaintiff is only
None of the cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law. The list primarily references prior judgments and their citations without any clear indication of negative treatment or disapproval by subsequent courts. Therefore, based solely on the provided information, no cases are definitively identified as bad law.
Followed / Cited:
Phool Kumar VS Shyam Singh - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1757: References a three-Judge Bench decision in Sri Ram Pasricha v. ... Daya Ram Nagina Ram and others; AIR 1961 P H 528. This appears to be a foundational or precedent case that is cited in subsequent judgments.
Amarnath Gupta VS Usha Sharma - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 784: Mentions Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath [(1976) 4 SCC 184], indicating it is a significant case that is being referred to for legal principles.
Bharti @ (Rani), W/o. Tularam Karmakar VS Tularam Karmakar, S/o. Late Shyamlal - 2023 0 Supreme(Chh) 622: Cites Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath and Ors reported in AIR 1976 SC 2335, suggesting reliance on this precedent.
Jogesh Gupta VS Shree Shree Iswar Satyanaraynji - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1130: Also refers to Sri Ram Pasricha vs. ... and other cases, indicating it is being used as a legal authority or reference.
Distinguished / Referenced for Legal Principles:
Dharam Veer Goel VS Renu Jain - Current Civil Cases (2023): Discusses a legal point regarding co-owners filing suits for eviction, possibly referencing or distinguishing other cases.
BABU RAM GUPTA VS CHANDER PRAKASH - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 478: Mentions judgments by Shri Ram Pasricha vs. ... and Bohat Ram, indicating that these cases are used to establish or contrast legal principles, especially regarding site plan disputes.
Amarnath Gupta VS Usha Sharma - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 784: Also references Dhannalal vs. Kalawatibai, indicating a comparative or supportive role in legal reasoning.
Unclear / Ambiguous Treatment:
The entries mainly cite cases for their legal principles or facts without indicating whether they are followed, overruled, or criticized. For example, entries like Phool Kumar VS Shyam Singh - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1757, Dharam Veer Goel VS Renu Jain - Current Civil Cases (2023), and BABU RAM GUPTA VS CHANDER PRAKASH - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 478 do not specify how subsequent courts treated these cases beyond citation.
The listing of case citations without treatment language makes it difficult to determine if any case has been overruled or criticized.
All cases are listed with references and citations but lack explicit treatment indicators (such as "overruled," "criticized," "distinguished," etc.). Therefore, their treatment remains uncertain based on the provided data.
Specifically, cases like Sri Ram Pasricha v. ... and its citations are frequently referenced, suggesting ongoing relevance, but without explicit treatment language, their current legal standing cannot be conclusively determined.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
