Kolkata Court April 1950 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kalicharan Ganguly Vs. Rameswarlal Agarwalla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Cal477,54CWN577
Mitter, J.1. This is a suit for ejectment on the ground of the tenancy having been determined ipso facto by reason of default in paying rent for three successive months. The suit was filed in September 1949 when the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act of 1948 was in force. 2. The plaintiff let out the premises concerned to the defendant as a monthly tenant with effect from 1st November 1948 at a rent of Rs. 200/- per month. The terms of the tenancy were incorporated in a document which was executed on 17th October 1948. 3. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant was very often in arrears with his rent and that he failed to pay any rent for June, July and August 1949. It was a term of the tenancy that rent should be paid in advance on or before the 15th of the current month. The defendant having thus defaulted in paying rent for three successive months, the plaintiff filed the present suit on 21st September 1949. 4. The defendant's case as pleaded is that at the time of the agreeme...
Manicklall Dutt Vs. S. DabiruddIn Ahmed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Cal236,54CWN572
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of premises No. 7/3A, Gopal Chandra Lane, Calcutta, for the sum of Rs. 318.12-0 as rent in arrears, profits at the rate of Rs. 3-9-0 per day from 1-8-1949 until possession and interest and costs. The suit was filed on 31.6-1949. At the time when the suit was filed the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1948 was in force.2. The claim in the suit proceeds on the basis that the defendant was a monthly tenant in respect of the said premises at a rent of Rs. 106-4-0 per month. It is said that the defendant failed and neglected to pay or deposit rent of the said premises for, the months of May, June and July 1949, and, therefore, by reason of Section 12 (3) of Act of 1948 the tenancy came to an and ipso facto.3. The written statement in this suit was filed on 13-12-1949, and the main defence is that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to excuse or wai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›