Kolkata Court April 1951 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.
Abinash Chandra Dutta and ors. Vs. Gour Chandra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal76,55CWN489
K.C. Chunder, J.1. This appeal is by a mortgagor claiming relief under Section 26G(5), Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The facts are simple. A usufructuary mortgage was executed in 1902. The mortgagees remained in possession. On 19-6-1946, the present application was filed in the Court of the Munsif of Dubrajpur alleging that the usufructuary mortgage had become extinguished by virtue of possession of over 15 years under Section 26G(5), Bengal Tenancy Act. The Munsif gave relief to the appellant. On appeal being taken to the Court of the Dist. J. of Birbhum 'the Disk J. held that Article 181 of the Indian Limitation Act applied & therefore as the right to apply under Section 26G arose when the section was enacted in 1938 the present application in 1946 was barred by time. Against this decision of the Dist. J. the present appeal has been filed.3. So far as the question of limitation is concerned with regard to proceedings under the Bengal Tenancy Act there are three classes of cases. The first is...
Bissesswarlal and ors. Vs. Dongarmal Srimal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal128,55CWN564
Roxburgh, J.1. This is a Rule against an order of a Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta passed on July 8, 1950 setting aside, on an application made under Section 18 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950, an order for possession passed under Chap. 7 of the Calcutta Small Cause Courts Act on March 13, 1950.2. The proceeding originally began on July 6, 1948 when the Calcutta Rent Ordinance was in force.3. The principal contention now put forward here is that Section 18 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act 1950 had no application to the case as it was commenced under the Ordinance. I have already dealt with this contention in the case of 'Jethmul Sethia v. Aloke Ganguly', Civil Revn. Case No. 1059 of 1950. Under Section 12 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act 1948, which came into force on the 1st of December 1948, opportunity was given for tenants, in pending cases, to catch up, as it were, in the matter of arrears, and therefore in my opinion if...
Kali Charan Nandy Vs. Guru Charan Kairi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal67,55CWN484
Das, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the pltf. & is directed against the judgment of Mookerjee J. dated 16-6-1950, passed in S. A. 166 of 1950. The facts leading up to the present controversy may be stated in order to appreciate the conduct of the deft.-resp. in obstructing the attempts on behalf of the pltf.-applt. to reap the fruits of a decree which was obtained as far back as the year 1939. On 22-12-1921 Kali Charan Nandy, pltf. applt. granted a lease to the deft. resp. for a term of 20 years, that is, from 1922 to 1941, of the disputed premises. One of the terms of the lease was that if the lessee defaulted in payment of the rent preserved (sic) for eight months the lessor would have a right of re-entry. It appears that the lessee defaulted in payment of rent for ten months. The pltf. landlord instituted a suit for ejectment on the ground that there was a breach of the covenant in the lease which entitled the pltf. landlord to recover possession. This suit ended in a consen...
Joy Kumar Sarkar Vs. S.K. Chaudhuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal130,55CWN471
G.N. Das, J.1. This is an appeal by the Maintiff under Clause (15) of the Letters Patent against a judgment of Roxburgh J. dated 23rd May and 9th June 1950. The facts are not in dispute and may be stated as follows:2. In July 1942, the tenant-defendant took a lease from the plaintiff-landlord of the flat in suit, being the northern portion of the first floor of premises No. P-328 Lake Place, at a monthly rent of Rs . 32/-. The defendant defaulted in payment of rent for the period, April 1943 to February 1945. The plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes, Sealdah, for recovery of the said arrears of rent and obtained a decree on 7th June 1945. The amount decreed was made payable in certain instalments, the first instalment being payable in June 1945. The defendant paid only the first instalment and defaulted in payment of the succeeding instalments. On 27th June 1945, the plaintiff duly served on the defendant a notice to quit the premises on the expiration of the month of Ju...
Sambhu Charan Nundy Vs. Gopi Mohan Bhattacharjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Cal507
B.P. Mukharji, J.1. This is the deft's. appln. for committing the pltfs. Sambhu Charan Nundy & Nilmoni Nundy for contempt & for varying and discharging the undertakings given by the deft, appct. under the consent decree. Two questions have been argued before me: one relates to the pillars according to the sanctioned plan of the Corpn. & the other relates to a window in the south-eastern room which is the alternative accommodation given under the consent decree to the deft.2. The consent decree is dated the 23-11-1930. The terms of the consent decree are set out in annexure B to the petition. There are respective undertakings of the pltfs. & the deft, in the various clauses of the terms of settlement; for instance, Clause 2 of the terms of settlement contains undertakings given both by the pltf. as well as by the deft. Similarly, Clause 5 (wrongly numbered as 5 in the terms of settlement) embodies the undertaking by the deft.3. With regard to the first question about pillars, it is admi...
Naresh Vs. Kanai Lal Roy Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal852,56CWN480
K.C. Chunder, J.1. This is a tenant's appeal against an appellate decree io ejectment of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Hooghly affirming that of the Munsif, 2nd Court, Serampore. The suit for ejectment was brought by the landlord respondent under the Act of 1948 on the ground of default in payment of rout and of bona fide requirement of the landlord of the premises for his own use and occupation. Service of notice to quit was also pleaded. Both the Courts have held that the notice to quit was properly served.2. It was urged before the Courts below and in this Court also that there is a dispute as to whether the tenancy was according to the English Calendar or the Bengali Calendar. Both the Courts have held that as a question of fact the tenancy was under the Bengali Calendar. It is clear that the tenancy began under the Bengali Calendar. It appears that there was an application for fixation of standard rent before the Rent Controller which ended in a compromise dated 11-9-1947. I...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›