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

1988 Supreme(Cal) 219

SUDHANSHU SEKHAR GANGULY, M.K.MUKHERJEE
SHIKHA DUTTA, PROSANTA KUMAR LAHIRI – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ANIMESH KANTI GHOSAL, SUDHIR DAS GUPTA

MONOJ KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THESE two revisional applications are directed against Order No. 12, dated February 2, 1988 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 10th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 11 of 1987, disposing of an application filed under Sections 17 (2) and (2a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 ('act' for short ). By the impugned order the learned Judge directed the tenant/defendant to pay arrear municipal taxes and arrear rents amounting to Rs. 17,920 and Rs. 4,380. respectively, together with interest thereon @ 81/2%, in ten equal monthly installments. One of these applications has been filed by the plaintiff/landlord whose grievance is that the calculation of arrear rents is wrong while the grievance of the defendant, who is the petitioner in the other revisional application, is that the learned Judge erred in directing her to pay arrear municipal taxes.

( 2 ) IT is not disputed that the tenancy is governed by a written agreement, dated September 25, l980. The agreement provident inter alia that the tenant shall pay a monthly sum of Rs. 1,230 as rent and bear municipal taxes. Another term of the agreement, which is relevant for our present












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