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

2006 Supreme(Cal) 589

PRANAB KUMAR DEB
PROMILA MOOKERJEE – Appellant
Versus
KRISHNA DUTTA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ASHIS BAGCHI, DEBA MITRA CHANDA, KAUSLK CHANDA, PROBAL KUMAR MUKHERJEE

PRANAB KUMAR DEB, J.

( 1 ) THIS instant revisonal application has been directed against the order dated 6-3-2006 passed by the learned Civil judge (Senior Division) at Alipore, whereby the application under Section 17 (2) (2a) and (b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was allowed.

( 2 ) IN moving the revisional application, mr. Ashis Bagchi, learned senior counsel has submitted that since no service was extended in the suit premises, the trial Court should not have directed the petitioner to pay the service charge to the tune of Rs. 400/-per month in favour of the landlord. Citing the case of Anita Das Gupta v. A. C. Sett, reported in 1984 (88) C. W. N. 242, it is submitted that if the service charges are really independent of the tenancy, it will not be deemed to be part of the rent. The true test would be to find out whether the services which are charged for are for the independent service rendered and enjoyed not as part of the tenancy. Since such independent services have not been provided, the landlord is not entitled to get service charge from the tenant, as contended by Mr. Bagchi.

( 3 ) CHALLENGING the quantum of arrear rent, Mr. Bagchi has submitted that the amou





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