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

1966 Supreme(Cal) 166

B.MUKERJI
TRILOKNATH LALL – Appellant
Versus
MALATI BIBI KHETRY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
LALA HEMANTA KUMAR, MOHAN LAL DE, RABINDRA NARAYAN CHAKRAWORTY

B. MUKHERJI, J.

( 1 ) THE two petitioners before me, Trilok Nath Lall and Kedar Nath Lall, are the tenants of 73 Tarak Pramanik Road on a rent of Rs. 140 a month. For November and December 1958, they deposited Rs. 280 with the controller on the allegation that their landlord, then one Radhakrishna Khattray, had not accepted the rent, though tendered. An allegation as this was accompanied by an application and supported by an affidavit, as it had to be under Section 21, Sub-section 8, of the Premises Tenancy Act, 12 of 1956. Such deposit was made and affidavit sworn on or about January 17, 1959. The landlord received the notice of the deposit on February 9, 1959, and applied under Sub-section 5 of Section 21 for withdrawal of the same. He did a little more too. At the time of so applying for withdrawal, he complained to the controller as under:"the petitioners have been in arrears of rent from March 1958. Their tenancy was, therefore, determined by a notice dated November 17, 1958, asking them to quit by the following December's end. More, an action in ejectment was raised against them in the City Civil Court, being suit No. 169 of 1959. The allegation made in the petitioners' appl

















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