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

1951 Supreme(Cal) 4

LAHIRI, G.N.DAS
ATULYADHAN BANERJEE – Appellant
Versus
SUDHANGSU BHUSAN DUTTA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
G.P.SANYAL, Hirendra Chunder Ghosh, Sachindra Chandra Das Gupta

DAS, J.

( 1 ) THIS rule arises out of an appln. under Section 115, Civil P. C. , and Article 227, Const. Ind.

( 2 ) THE facts are as follows. The opposite party was a month to month tenant under the petnr. in respect of premises No. 110/2a/3 Amehrst Street, Calcutta at a rent of Rs. 16- per month, payable according to the Gregorian Calendar.

( 3 ) THE opposite party failed to pay the rent for the months of February, March and April 1949.

( 4 ) UNDER Sub-section (3) of Section 12, West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948, which was then in force, the interest of the opposite party in the said premises became ipso facto determined and the opposite party could no longer be deemed to be a tenant.

( 5 ) THE petnr. gave the opposite party 7 days notice to vacate the premises, and on the failure of the latter to do so, initiated on 5-8-1949, proceedings under Section 41, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, for recovery of possession of the said premises, on the ground that the interest of the opposite party had ipso facto determined as aforesaid. The proceedings were registered as Small Cause Ct. Suit No. 9240 of 1949 (Ejectment ).

( 6 ) THE opposite p






























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