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

1951 Supreme(Cal) 4

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
G. N. Das, Lahiri
ATULYADHAN BANERJEE - Appellant
Versus
SUDHANGSU BHUSAN DUTTA - Respondent
Civil Revn.  1358  Of  1950
Decided On : JANUARY 04, 1951

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

The term 'decree for recovery of possession' in Section 18 of the 1950 Act should be broadly construed to include an order for recovery of possession under chap. 7, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882.

Headnote:

Section 115 - Civil Procedure Code - West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948, Section 12(3) - Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, Section 41 - West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950, Section 18 - West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Act, 1950, Section 4, Section 5 - Construction of the term 'decree' in Section 18 of the 1950 Act

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought possession of premises from the month-to-month tenant due to non-payment of rent. The tenant filed an application under Section 18 of the 1950 Act, which was initially set aside by the court. The petitioner appealed against this decision, leading to the present rule.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the meaning of 'decree for recovery of possession' in Section 18 of the 1950 Act and concluded that it should be broadly construed to include an order for recovery of possession under chap. 7, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882.

Issues: Interpretation of the term 'decree' in Section 18 of the 1950 Act and its applicability to orders for recovery of possession under chap. 7, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the fundamental rule of interpretation of statutes to expound the intent of the legislature and concluded that the term 'decree' should be broadly construed to give protection to all tenants against eviction.

Final Decision: The court overruled the contention raised by the petitioner and discharged the rule, with parties bearing their own costs.

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 party filed a written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. The suit was heard by the 2nd Bench of the Ct. of Small Causes and on 24-3-1950 an order under Section 43, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, was made, possession being directed to be delivered on 25-4-1950.

( 7 ) ON 31-3-1950, the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 (XVII [17] of 1950) came into force. This Act will hereinafter be designated as the 1950 Act for the sake of convenience. The Act repealed the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions), Act, 1948 (XXXVIII [38] of 1948, hereinafter to be called the 1948 Act for the sake of convenience.)

( 8 ) ON 2-5-1950, the opposite party filed an appln, under Section 18 of the 1950 Act, before the 2nd Bench of the Ct. of Small Causes, Calcutta. On 8-6-1950 the Ct. passed the following order: "pltf. absent Deft's. pleader Sri H. K. Sen present. Amount due is deposited in Ct. Decree, is set aside on full satisfaction. Money in Ct. to be withdrawn by the pltf. "

( 9 ) THE petnr. filed an appeal against the said order dated 8-6-1950. The appeal was registered as App. No. 1320 of 1950.

( 10 ) AT the hearing of the appeal before the Special Bench a preliminary objection was taken on the ground that no appeal lay against the said order dated 8-6-1950. The Special Bench gave effect to the preliminary objection and by an order dated 28-8-1950, directed that "the appeal be rejected on contest as not maintainable before the Special Bench. No order is made as to costs. "

( 11 ) THE present rule was obtained by the petnr. against the order dated 8-6-1950 passed by the 2nd Bench in Suit No. 9240 of 1949 as also against the order dated 28-8-1950 of the Special Bench in App. No. 1320 of 1950.

( 12 ) MR. Sanyal, learned advocate for the petnr. , has not challenged the propriety of the order dated 28-8-1950, made by the Special Bench in App. No. 1320 of 1950. He has, however, contested the validity of the order dated 8-6-1950 passed by the Second Bench in Suit No. 9240 of 1949 on the ground that Section 18 of the 1950 Act has no application to an order for possession made under Section 43, Presidency Small Clause Courts Act, 1882, because such an order cannot appropriately be regarded as a decree for recovery of possession within the meaning of the expression in Sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the 1950 Act. The sub-section reads as follows :"where any decree for recovery of possession of any premises has been made on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Bent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948, but the possession of such premises has not been recovered from the tenant, the tenant may apply to the trial Ct. within sixty days
























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 Back to top