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

1990 Supreme(Cal) 178

AMULYA KUMAR NANDI
HIRAN BALA DEBI – Appellant
Versus
PRODYUT KUMAR MONDAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ANJUSRI MUKHERJI, ASHISH GHOSH, DINA-BANDHU CHAWDHARY, TARUN CHATTEJEE

A. K. NANDI, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against an Order no. 10 dated 15. 6. 88 made by the 5th Court of the Munsif at Alipore in Title Suit No. 64 of 1987.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for eviction against defendant-opposite party no. 1 alleging that the opposite party no. 1 was a tenant under the plaintiffs in respect of the suit premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 115/ -. Eviction has been sought for on the ground of default in the payment of rent since May, 1986 and reasonable requirement of the landlords for their own use and occupation. The tenancy is alleged to have been terminated by service of a notice to quit dated 12. 9. 86.

( 3 ) THERE is no controversy that the tenant-defendant no. 1 did not enter appearance and contest the suit. Tenant's wife Nanda Mandal figuring as opposite party no. 2 in this revision filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. Code for being impleaded as a party defendant in the suit. In her petition she claims to be the ostensible tenant and a benamder of the husband. The allegation is that her husband took settlement in 1976 at a monthly rental of Rs. 115 / -. Since the inception of tenancy the wife is living in t














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