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

1972 Supreme(Cal) 201

ARUN KUMAR MUKHERJEE, M.M.DUTT
AJIT KUMAR ROY – Appellant
Versus
SATYA BALA DUTT – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
BHUPENDRA KUMAR PANDA, MAHINDRA NATH GHOSH, SATISH CHANDRA ROY

M. M. DUTT, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is at the instance of the defendants and it arises out of a suit for ejectment.

( 2 ) THE suit premises consists of three floors in premises No. 8/1, Baithakkhana First Lane now known as Debendra Nath Roy Lane. The plaintiff purchased the said premises on September 30, 1959. She instituted the suit on March 22, 1962. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff with the members of her family have been residing in a rented house and that she reasonably requires the suit premises for the use and occupation of herself and the members of her family. It has been alleged by the plaintiff that the defendants are defaulters in payment of rent. The tenancy of the defendants were determined by the plaintiff by the service of a notice to quit, but the defendants not having vacated the suit premises, the plaintiff instituted the suit.

( 3 ) THE suit was contested by some of the defendants. It has been alleged by the defendants that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit premises, but she is the Benamdar of her husband and that she does not reasonably require the suit premises for the use and occupation of herself and the members of her family. The def














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