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) 132

LAHIRI, P.N.MUKHERJEE
TARAKDAS DUTTA – Appellant
Versus
SARAT CHANDRA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
PHANINDRA KUMAR SANYAL, PRASUN CHANDRA GHOSH, SITARAM BANERJEE

LAHIRI, P. N. MUKHERJEE

( 1 ) THIS Rule was obtained by the plaintiff in a proceeding for recovery of possession under Section 41, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act against the order of the Registrar of the Small Cause Court by which he set aside a consent decree obtained by the plaintiff under Section 18 (1), West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1950.

( 2 ) THE facts which are material for the purposes of this Rule are undisputed and may be stated as follows: The plaintiff started the present proceeding against the opposite party for recovery of possession of a portion of premises No. 59, Ahireetola of which the opposite party was a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 23/ -. On 23-5-1949, the said proceeding terminated in a compromise decree made by the Registrar under which the opposite party undertook to vacate the premises. The date of delivery of possession was extended by consent to 24-4-1950. On 31-3-1950, the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act of 1950 came into operation and on 18-4-1950, the opposite party filed an application for vacating the consent decree under Section 18 (1) of the said Act, and the application was allowed by the Registrar by


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