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

1951 Supreme(Cal) 123

HARRIES
RAMESH CHANDRA MAJUMDAR – Appellant
Versus
SOBODHBALA DASI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
BISWANATH ROY, PARESH NATH BHATTACHARYA

HARRIES, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition for revision of an order made by a learned Judge of the Small Cause Court directing certain security under Section 14 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950.

( 2 ) THE suit had been brought by the landlord for ejectment and for a large sum as arrears of rent. An application was made to the Court under Section 14 that the Court should ascertain in the amount of the arrears of rent and direct the tenant to deposit the same and the future monthly rent as it fell due in Court pending the disposal of the case.

( 3 ) THE case for the tenant is that there is no rent due at all because under an agreement made between him and the landlord the tenant was entitled to deduct from a future rent the cost of repiars. The tenant claims that the repairs cost Rs. 2,000/- and if that was deducted from the rent as it fell due, nothing was due and owing for rent.

( 4 ) IT seems to me that the Court must decide this question before it can make any order calling upon the defendant to deposit the arrears of rent. If there are no arrears by reason of this agreement, then an order calling upon him to deposit would be gross in



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