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

1966 Supreme(Cal) 232

P.CHATTERJEE
PUNDARIKAKSHA BASU – Appellant
Versus
SARDAR CHANDA SINGH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ARUNENDRANATH BASU, J.N.GUHA, MRITUNJAY DE, P.N.MITTER

P. CHATTERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THE substantial question involved in this Second Appeal is to interpret Clause VI of the lease Clause VI runs as follows:--"to erect only temporary structures as may be necessary for their pupose: and if any structure of permanent or substantial character is erected by the lessees that will be done by them at their own risk, to remove the structures within a fortnight from the expiry of the lease by efflux of time, in default they will lose all rights in the structure and their rights therein will be extinguished. . . . . . "

( 2 ) THIS lease was executed on the 30th December 1946 This lease should be interpreted not merely in the context of the Transfer of Property Act which was then in force but also in the context of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act which came in force later. Under Section 7. Sub-section 5 of the said Act"notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or any contract, if the landlord has allowed pucca structures to be erected on any non-agricultural land held under a lease in writing for a period specified therein, whether such structures have been erected before the expiration of the said period then the








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