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

1951 Supreme(Cal) 299

HARRIES, G.N.DAS
KALI PROSAD – Appellant
Versus
JAGADISH PADA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ASHUTOSH GANGULY, ATUL CHANDRA GUPTA, Bijan Bihari Das Gupta, N.C.SEN GUPTA, NANI KUMAR CHAKRABORTY

G. N. DAS, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision. The question in controversy between the parties is what is the nature of the relationship between the parties by virtue of an agreement which was entered into by them. The appeal court has held that there was letting within the meaning of the Rent Control Act. Dr. Sen Gupta appearing for the petitioner contends that on a true construction of the terms of the agreement the opposite party cannot be regarded as a lessee and the provisions of the Rent Control Act for fixing the rent would not be attracted. It would appear from the terms of the lease that the first party named therein who had been carrying on a business in cinema shows entered into an agreement with the second party who is the opposite party in this revision case, for the carrying on of the cinema business. According to Dr. Sen Gupta the arrangement merely provided for the further carrying on of the cinema business on a premium of Rs. 3000/ -.

( 2 ) THE contention of the opposite party, however, is that on a true construction of the agreement it was a lease of the premises on which the cinema business was being run. It would appear that the agreement entitled the



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