ASHALATA BISWAS Vs. SUDHIR KUMAR ADDYA
LAWS(CAL)-1960-1-33
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on January 13,1960

Ashalata Biswas Appellant
VERSUS
Sudhir Kumar Addya Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This revisional application is directed against an order of Shri P.K. Choudhury, Munsif, 4th Court, Alipore, sitting as a Controller under the Thika Tenancy Act, dismissing an application under Section 27(5) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, for review of an order assessing the compensation payable to the thika tenant on ejectment on the ground that the land of the tenancy is required by the landlord for the purpose of building or development by discontinuing letting to thika tenants. The application by the landlord opposite party for ejectment of the tenant, viz., the Petitioner, was allowed by the learned Munsif sitting as a Controller, by his order, dated September 22, 1954, it being held that the landlord required the land of the tenancy for building on the land by discontinuing, letting of the land to thika tenants. It was ordered that the ejectment would lie male on payment of such compensation as might be agreed between the parties, or if they did not agree, as might be determined by the Controller on an application by either party. There was an appeal filed by the tenant Petitioner but the appeal was dismissed on July 7, 1955. On November 25, 1955, a revisional application was filed by the Petitioner against the appellate order and a Rule was issued by the High Court, but the Rule was discharged on August 3, 1956.
(2.) On August 11, 1955, i.e., after the records had been received back by the Controller after disposal of the appeal by the Subordinate Judge, Alipore, and before the records were called for by the High Court, the landlord opposite party filed a petition to the Controller stating that the value of the structures of the Petitioner tenant on the disputed land would not be worth than Rs. 1,000 and that the opposite party might be directed to deposit in Court the sum of Rs. 1,000 as compensation, payable to the tenant. A copy of the petition was served on the Advocate of the tenant Petitioner and he made, an endorsement on the original application "received copy and objected to". On October 7, 1955, the Controller after hearing the Advocate for the landlord and observing that no objection had been raised by the tenant, recorded an order stating that Rs. 1,000 was the compensation payable by the landlord to the tenant on ejectment and directed the landlord to deposit that money in Court by November 24. 1955. The landlord took an adjournment for depositing the money and in the meantime the record was called for by the High Court. After discharge of the Rule by the High Court, the landlord deposited the sum of Rs. 1,000 and thereupon on September 14, 1956, the Controller passed the final order of ejectment against the tenant, directing that the tenant be elected and the structures on the land do vest in the landlord. Out of this sum of Rs. 1,000, again, the sum of Rs. 850 was attached on November 24, 1956, under an order passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 2933/56 of Sealdah, a suit brought by the landlord against the tenant Petitioner for arrears of rent or damages for use and occupation, of the land. On December 8, 1956, the Petitioner filed the application under Section 27(5) of the Thika Tenancy Act, and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, stating that she was not aware of the application filed by the landlord on August 11, 1955, for assessment of the compensation at Rs. 1,000 and for an order for deposit of the compensation the assessed in Court, and that she had first come to know of the order passed by the Controller regarding compensation on December 7, 1956, from one Shri B. Bhattacharjee and that she would suffer a great loss if the question of compensation was not heard afresh in her presence, as according to her the value of the structures would be about Rs. 30,000 and not merely Rs. 1,000 as alleged by the landlord. Notice was issued on the landlord of this application and after hearing both parties the learned Controller by his order, dated January 8, 1958, dismissed the application.
(3.) Against that order refusing to re-hear the question of compensation the tenant Petitioner has filed this revisional application.;


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