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

1952 Supreme(Cal) 230

CHUNDER
D. K. SEN GUPTA – Appellant
Versus
ANANTA LAL DAS – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
C.C.GANGULY, CHANDRA GUPTA, KIRAN BANDHU MUKHERJI, Nanigopal Das

CHUNDER, J.

( 1 ) THIS Rule is at the instance of a tenant who complained under Section 34 of stoppage of water by the landlord. He mentioned 25-1-1951, as the time when this was done. His petition before the Rent Controller under Section 34, West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1950 was on 29-1-1951. 'prima facie', no question of limitation arises. No issue as to limitation under Section 34 was ever raised before the Rent Controller. The learned Subordinate Judge without proper appreciation of what was being done by the Rent Controller held that the occurrence related to violation of an order passed in 1949 by Mr. S. K. Neogi but the judgment of the learned Rent Controller itself will show that what the Rent Controller meant was that instead of carrying out what Mr, Neogi had previously ordered in 1949 the landlord further harassed his tenant by an additional act of plugging the tenant's pipe this time. He says: "it appears that the landlord instead of plugging his pipe plugged the pipe of the petitioner. " It is abundantly clear therefore that the question of limitation was misunderstood by the learned Subordinate Judge.

( 2 ) THE learned Subordinate


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