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

1968 Supreme(Cal) 135

S.K.MUKHERJEE, D.N.SINHA, A.K.MUKHERJI
ABDUL GANI – Appellant
Versus
MD. ISRAIL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Chandidas Roy Chowdhury, R.C.DE, SAKTINATH MUKHERJI, SANKAR GHOSH

SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is a reference in which three questions have been referred to us for answer. The relevant facts are all set out in the order of reference. It will be convenient to refer to it briefly. The suit was for eviction of the defendant, a monthly tenant, from one ground floor room within the premises 71a, Colootolla Street, Calcutta. A notice to quit dated 21st September. 1961 was given by the landlord through his lawyer, a copy of which is set out in the order of reference. It sets out two grounds, corresponding to clauses (a) and (f) of Section 13 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act' ). There is no express statement therein to the effect that in default of making over possession a suit will be filed. As the referring Court was of the view that the proposition laid down in the decision of the Division Bench in Dulin Chand Dutta v. Renuka Banerjee, 68 Cal WN 296 that if a notice to quit would not, by itself, be a notice of suit, the mere mention of the ground of ejectment in a notice to quit, would not make it so, is too wide, a reference was made to a Full Bench for its decision on three points which have bee










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