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

1971 Supreme(Cal) 38

S.K.CHAKRAVARTY
B. P. LAHIRI – Appellant
Versus
JYOTIRMAYEE DEVI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
NRIPENDRA BHATTACHARJI, S.C.MITTER, S.P.ROYCHOWDHURY

( 1 ) TWO common questions arise for decision in these two Rules which were issued at the instance of the defendant in two suits for eviction. The first one is whether the tenant is entitled to get relief under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, in a suit for eviction under the provisions of the W. B. Premises Tenancy Act. The learned Munsif held that this relief is not open to him, and he is quite right in that view.

( 2 ) THE second question that arises is as to whether the learned Munsif was justified in rejecting his application filed under Sections 8 and 9 of Act XXXIV of 1969 (West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, 1969), Section 8 amends Section 21 of the Original Act and Section 9 amends Section 22. Section 13 of Act XXXIV of 1969 would show that the amendments by Sections 8 and 9 "shall have effect in respect of suits including appeals which are pending at the date or commencement of this Act. " Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the suits are still pending, though the defences against the delivery of possession had been struck out and that under the recent amended Sections 21 and 22 referred to

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