SUDHANSHU DHULIA, PRASANNA B. VARALE
Rajesh Mitra @Rajesh Kumar Mitra – Appellant
Versus
Karnani Properties Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
1. The appellants (the defendants in the suit), are here in challenge to the judgement dated 08.12.2022 whereby their Appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge (which was a judgment on admission), dated 29.06.2022. While decreeing the suit, the Court had directed the appellants (tenant) to vacate the suit property and handover the vacant possession to the respondent-plaintiff, within sixty days!
2. This is a landlord-tenant matter arising out of an eviction suit filed by the respondent before the Calcutta High Court, inter alia, praying for eviction of appellants from Room No.208, 2nd Floor, 25-A Park Street, Kolkata (hereafter referred as the “premises”). Even before the appellants could file a Written Statement, the plaintiff, without loosing any time, filed an application under Order XII Rule 61[6. Judgment on admissions.— (1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of a
Charanjit Lal Mehra & Ors. v. Kamal Saroj Mahajan (Smt) And Anr. (2005) 11 SCC 279 [Para 3]
Raveesh Chand Jain v. Raj Rani Jain (2015) 8 SCC 428 [Para 3]
Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India And Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 120 [Para 3]
Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd. (2011) 15 SCC 273 [Para 3]
Hari Steel & General Industries Ltd. v. Diljit Singh (2019) 20 SCC 425 [Para 3]
Goutam Dey v. Jyotsna Chatterjee reported in 2012 SCC OnLine Cal 642 [Para 8]
Sri. Sushil Kumar Jain & Ors. v. Pilani Properties Limited
Prabir Kumar Jalan v. Laxmi Narayan Jalan
P.Singaravelan v. District Collector
Palam Gas Service v. CIT (2017) 7 SCC 613; Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359 [Para 14]
CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd.
State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy (1977) 4 SCC 471 [Para 19]
The court established that tenancy rights under the 1956 Act were not extinguished by the 1997 Act, emphasizing the necessity of clear admissions for eviction under CPC.
The court established that tenancy rights under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 are not inheritable beyond five years from the original tenant's death, particularly in non-residential tena....
Successors of statutory tenants under the Rent Act do not inherit liability but continue under existing obligations, ensuring landlords retain their rights for eviction despite tenant succession.
The heritable rights of the statutory tenant are governed by the provisions of Section 2(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, and the rights in the tenanted property can only flow in favor of heirs as p....
(1) Landlord-tenant relationship does not cease merely on death of tenant.(2) Ratio decidendi – One additional or different fact can make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases, even ....
Tenancy rights under Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act are inheritable only for five years post-death, and failure to pay rent for five years constitutes grounds for eviction.
Protection under tenancy laws for non-residential tenants is limited to five years post-death of the original tenant; improper classification of suit leads to jurisdictional dismissal.
The tenancy rights of the original tenant's children are limited to a period of five years from the tenant's death, as per Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.