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

1951 Supreme(Cal) 241

ROXBOURGH
AHUMAD ALI BISWAS – Appellant
Versus
JYOTSNA KUMAR BANDOPADHYAY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
BANKIM CHANDRA BANERJI, Jagannath Cangopadhyay, LALA HEMANTA KUMAR, SUSHIL KUMAR BANERJEE

ROXBURGH, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by a tenant against a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Murshidabad affirming the decree of the Munsif of Lalbagh in a suit for eviction.

( 2 ) THE circumstances are a little unusual. Apparently the plaintiffs and the defendant were each occupying the premises of the other as tenants, and the plaintiffs' case is that the rents were set off. The defendant started trouble by suing the plaintiffs for rent, whereupon the plaintiffs gave the defendant notice under Section 106 of the T. P. Act to vacate.

( 3 ) TWO points were urged before me, first that in view of the arrangement between the parties, the decree for eviction should not have been made without some corresponding relief to the defendant to get back his premises. No case was made out that there was in fact any such mututal arrangement, and I fail to see how any case of equitable relief can arise in the circumstances. There is therefore no substance in this point.

( 4 ) THE other question raised was that the notice was not sufficient and legal. The notice was given on 20-12-1948, and the tenant was asked to vacate 15 days after receipt of the notice within the month of Pous, that is to




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