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

1972 Supreme(Cal) 36

MURARI MOHAN DUTT
BAIDYANATH KUNDU – Appellant
Versus
JYOTSHNA RANI KARMAKAR – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Gita Lalwani, M.N.Ghosh, PURNA CHANDRA BASU

MURARI MOHAN DUTT, J.

( 1 ) THIS Rule is directed against order No. 56 dated February 2, 1971, passed by the learned Munsif, Second Court, Midnapur, in a proceeding under Section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. By the said order the learned Munsif struck out the defence of the petitioner against delivery of possession.

( 2 ) THE opposite party filed the suit for ejectment against the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent and also on the ground of reasonable requirement. It was alleged by the opposite party that the petitioner failed to pay rent since September 1966. Further, it was alleged by the opposite party that the deposit of rent made by the petitioner with the Rent Controller since November, 1967 and also the deposit made by the petitioner in Court after entering appearance in the suit, were all invalid deposits. The petitioner did not make any application under Section 17 (2) of the Act.

( 3 ) THE defence of the petitioner was, that he paid rent to the husband of the opposite party upto October 1967, but no receipt was granted by him. Since November 1967, the petitioner had been depositing rent with the Rent Controller as the husban










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