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

1987 Supreme(Cal) 35

A.M.Bhattacharjee, A.K.Nayak
Nanda Gopal Das – Appellant
Versus
Rabindra Nath De – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mukul Prakash Banerji, Prasanta Bandopadhyay, Sanat Kumar Seal, Tapan Chakraborty

JUDGMENT

1. THE appellant-tenant was sued for ejectment by the respondents-landlords under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 on the ground of default in payment of rent, for constructing permanent structure on the suit premises without the consent of the landlords and for causing nuisance and annoyance, but the suit has been decreed only on the ground of default. The tenant in his written statement disputed the rate of rent and also denied having committed any default in payment of rent. But he, however, applied under section 17 (2) and (2a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act for the determination of the rate of rent and for permission to deposit the arrears of rent by instalments. The learned trial Judge by his Order No. 22 dated 18. 6. 1973 determined the amount of arrears and permitted the tenant to deposit the same in ten monthly instalments. The tenant paid some of the instalments in accordance with the Order, but failed to pay the remaining instalments in time as required by that Order. The land lords accordingly applied under 'section 17 (3) of the Act for striking out the defence of the tenant against delivery of possession and the learned Jud



















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