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

1953 Supreme(Cal) 99

DAS, DEBABRATA MOOKHERJEE
SUKHENDU BIKASH BARUA – Appellant
Versus
HARE KRISHNA DE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ANIL KUMAR DAS GUPTA, BANKIM CHANDRA DUTT, BHABANI SANKAR BAKSHI, PRAFULLA KUMAR ROY

DAS, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the defendant and is directed against a judgment of Chunder J. , dated 28-3-1952.

( 2 ) THE facts are that In September, 1949, the plaintiffs respondents initiated proceedings under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act alleging that they required the disputed premises for their own use. The proceedings were numbered as Suit No, 10455 of 1949. The suit was decreed on contest by Mr. B. P. Bakshi, learned Judge, 4th Bench, his decision being dated 28-8-1949. Against that judgment an appeal was taken by the defendant to the Special Bench. The Special Bench dismissed the appeal on 23-3-1951. Thereafter the defendant filed a petition purporting to be under Section 115, Civil P. C. and Article 227 of the Constitution. A Rule was issued being Civil Rule No. 1437 of 1951. The Rule came up for hearing before Chunder J. who by his judgment dated 28-3-1952, discharged the Rule. Before the learned Judge two points appear to have been raised, namely, (1) whether the question whether the premises were required for the bona fide use of the landlords must be judged by a reference to the provisions of the Rent Control Act, 1948, or the Rent Control











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