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

1964 Supreme(Cal) 231

P.B.MUKHARJI
DEO CHAND SINGH – Appellant
Versus
SHAH MOHAMMAD – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
RANJIT KUMAR BANERJEE, Samar Kumar Banerjee, Sudhir Kumar Dutta

P. B. MUKHARJEE, J.

( 1 ) THIS Rule is directed against the order of the learned Munsif allowing the plaintiff's application to strike out the defendant's defence against delivery of possession under Section 17 (8) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.

( 2 ) THE petitioner tenant urges three main points in this Rule. His first point is that a solenama between the parties duly registered marked Ext. D, expressly provides a covenant that the petitioner tenant will hold the premises as tenant of the plaintiff for ten years with effect from April, 1955 and that during this period of ten years the tenant shall not be liable to be evicted on any ground whatever. It is, therefore, said that for the period of ten years from April, 1955 to March, 1965, the petitioner tenant was not liable to eviction on the ground of failure to pay rent and the only remedy of the landlord would be to sue for the rent. This covenant is claimed to protect the tenant from eviction on that ground. It is therefore said that he is entitled to raise this defence of the term of the lease itself contained in this solenama, and his defence should not have been struck off under Section 17 (3) of the Act.

( 3 ) H




























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