Rachita Dash Vs. Suresh Chandra Dash - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....site in dispute under s. 9 of the madras city tenants protection act, 1922. against payment of the full market value of the land on the date of the order. the order was confirmed in an appeal under the letters patent held: per gajendragadkar, c.j., shah and sikri, jj. section 12 has been enacted to protect the tenants against any contractual engagements which may have been made expressly or by implication to deprive themselves wholly or partially of the protection intended to be conferred by the statute. and the only class of cases in which the protection becomes ineffective is where the tenant has made a stipulation in writing registered as to the erection of buildings, erected after the date of the contract of lease. the stipulations not protected in s. 12 are only those in writing registered and relate to erection of buildings. such as restrictions about the size and nature of the building constructed, the building materials to be used therein and the purpose for which the building is to be utilised. (ii)section 9(1) of the act was manifestly in the interest of the general public to effectuate the mutual understanding between the, landlords and the tenants as to the duration.....order1. the petitioner is the wife of the respondent who has filed civil suit no. 21a of 2002, in the court of first addl. district judge, raigarh, titled suresh chandra das v. rachita das, for divorce. the petitioner submits that she is living in puri and it is impossible for her to defend the suit a raigarh which is about 500 kms. from puri. her difficulty, she submits, is that the travelling involves overnight journey and she cannot leave with anybody a two-month baby to undertake the said journey to defend the suit, nor can the baby we taken to the court. the respondent in his counter submits that he is an employee in a bank and the requirements of his duty do not permit him to take leave too often for the pursue of his case. it is further submitted that he would bear her travelling expenses and that the case may be transferred to a place between raigarh and puri.2. having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that considering the comparative difficulties faced by the petitioner to defend the case at raigarh and that of the respondent in going to puri, in our view, interest of justice would be served if the case is transferred from the court of first.....

Judgment:

ORDER

1. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent who has filed Civil Suit No. 21A of 2002, in the Court of First Addl. District Judge, Raigarh, titled Suresh Chandra Das v. Rachita Das, for divorce. The petitioner submits that she is living in Puri and it is impossible for her to defend the suit a Raigarh which is about 500 Kms. from Puri. Her difficulty, she submits, is that the travelling involves overnight journey and she cannot leave with anybody a two-month baby to undertake the said journey to defend the suit, nor can the baby we taken to the Court. The respondent in his counter submits that he is an employee in a Bank and the requirements of his duty do not permit him to take leave too often for the pursue of his case. It is further submitted that he would bear her travelling expenses and that the case may be transferred to a place between Raigarh and Puri.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that considering the comparative difficulties faced by the petitioner to defend the case at Raigarh and that of the respondent in going to Puri, in our view, interest of justice would be served if the case is transferred from the Court of First Addl. District Judge, Raigarh to the Court of District Judge, Bhubaneshwar. We order accordingly.

3. The learned District Judge, Bhubaneshwar, may try the case himself or allocate it to a Court of competent jurisdiction for trial.

4. The transfer petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.