R DORAISWAMI Vs. MADHABILATA GHOSH
LAWS(CAL)-1960-9-33
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 13,1960

R Doraiswami Appellant
VERSUS
Madhabilata Ghosh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) These applications, are under Article 227: of the Constitution and relate to Section 16 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act of 1956.
(2.) The Petitioner before me is the tenant. The opposite party No. 1 is the landlord and the opposite party No. 2 is the subtenant. The applications were filed on or about August 27, 1956 by the landlady opposite party No. 1 before the Rent Controller for a declaration that the tenancy of the Petitioner-tenant had ceased and the sub-tenant, opposite party No. 2, had become a direct tenant of the landlord, opposite party No. 1. The applications were opposed by the Petitioner tenant on the ground that the notice was not legal, valid and sufficient and further the sub tenancy had been created with the written consent of the then landlord, S.C. Ghosh. On February 26, 1958, the Bent Controller dismissed the applications on the ground that the notice, under Section 16(5) of the Act was defective and not valid in, law. Against that the landlady, opposite" party No. 1, filed an appeal. The appellate authority allowed the appeal. There was a cross-objection filed by the Petitioner but that was dismissed. Against them the present petitions have been filed.
(3.) The West (Bengal Premises Tenancy Act of 1956 came into force on March 30, 1956. On June 26, 1956, a notice purporting to be under Section 16(2) was issued by the sub-ten ant to the landlord. No notice was given by the tenant to the landlady. This notice appears to have been received by the landlord on June 30, 1956. The present applications were filed "on or about August 27, 1956. The questions that were urged in the Courts below have not been urged here. The question that have been urged here are questions relating to construction of Section 16 of the Act and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to entertain the applications in, question. Section 16(2) has no application to the facts of this case. Therefore, we are not called upon to consider that Sub-section. Section 16(2) has to be considered. The portion that has to be considered is "Where before the commencement of the "Act, the tenant has sub-let any premises either in whole or in "part, the tenant and the sub-tenant to whom the premises have "been sub-let shall give notice to the landlord of such sub-letting "in the prescribed manner within three months of the commencement of the Act and shall in. the prescribed manner notify the "termination of such sub-tenancy within one month of such "termination". It appear at the date when the notice was issued, i.e., on June 26, 1956, nothing had been prescribed about the manner of the notice.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.