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

1952 Supreme(Cal) 35

K.C.DAS GUPTA, BACHAWAT
BALAI LAL DAS – Appellant
Versus
MANIK CHANDRA PRAMANIK – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Amarendra Nath Basu, BISWANATH NASKAR, HIRALAL CHAKRAVARTY, S.K.HAZRA, SYAMADAS BHATTACHARYA

K. C. DAS GUPTA, J, J.

( 1 ) THE decision of this appeal by the defendant in an action for ejectment depends on the decision of a question of law whether in exercising powers under Section 14, West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as the 1950 Act, under the provisions of Section 18 (5) of that Act, the Court has to take notice of the proviso to Section 14 (3 ). Another question that was raised at first by the learned Advocate for the appellant, namely, that while the alleged ipso facto determination of the tenancy on which the action was based was stated to have taken place on 15-2-1948, the tenancy could not have been determined on that date as there had not been up to that date default of rents for three months accrued due after the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1948, came into operation, was given up when it was pointed out that the plaint did also aver defaults for other periods of three months accrued due after 1-12-1948, which defaults would undoubtedly result in ipso facto determination of the tenancy.

( 2 ) THE facts are not disputed. The appellant and another were the monthly tenants of the premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 28-2-0 a























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