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

1974 Supreme(Cal) 322

M.N.RAY
USHA RANJAN BHATTACHARYA – Appellant
Versus
MAHALAKSMI THACKER – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
AMIYA MUKHERJI, NANI GOPAL CHAUDHARY

M. N. RAY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Rule is directed against an order dated 26th February, 1974 made in the Distraint Proceeding No. 396 of 1973 by the learned Judge, 6th Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta in an application under Section 60 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act which was filed against a proceeding initiated on an application under section 53 of the said Act.

( 2 ) AT all material times the petitioner was and still is a tenant in respect of a room, being Room No. 26/2, at the first floor of premises No. 35, Chittaranjan Avenue, under the respondents. The petitioner contended at the time of the hearing of the proceeding and still he contends in this Court that the monthly rent payable by him for the premises in question was Rs. 99/- plus Rs. 11/- on account of lift, scavenging charges, water and other services. Thus he has contended that he was required to pay a total sum of Rs. 110/ -. Such payment, it is an admitted fact, was also required to be made according to English Calendar month. The petitioner has alleged that by letters of 7th March, 1970 and 16th March, 1970 he was asked by the respondents not to pay rent and consequent to that he had suspended payment










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