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

1951 Supreme(Cal) 175

P.N.MUKHERJEE
JATINDRA NATH – Appellant
Versus
MALAI RAM SHOW – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Apurbadhan Mukherjee, CHANDRA KUMAR CHATTERJI, NANI KUMAR CHAKRABORTY, Sachindra Chandra Das Gupta

P. N. MOOKERJEE, J.

( 1 ) IN this appeal by the defendant which arises out of a suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages, two questions have been raised by Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the defendant-appellant. The first is whether the defendant-appellant is entitled to any benefits under either Section 18 (5) or Section 14, West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 and the second question relates to the legality, validity and sufficiency of the notice to quit which, according to the plaintiff-respondent and the Courts below, determined the tenancy in the present case.

( 2 ) THE material facts as found by the Courts below are not now in dispute and they are as follows:

( 3 ) THE defendant was a monthly tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the two rooms in suit in holding No. 172, Panchanantala Road, Howrah, at a rental of Rs. 12/- per month. There was default in payment of rent and, therefore, the plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of over nine months' rent and therein the plaintiff obtained a decree against the defendant. Even after the institution of the said suit the default in the payment of rent continued and, accordingly, the plaintif
















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