KRISHNA DEBI Vs. SHALIMAR PAINT COLOUR AND VARNISH CO P LTD
LAWS(CAL)-1960-2-1
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on February 19,1960

KRISHNA DEBI Appellant
VERSUS
SHALIMAR PAINT COLOUR AND VARNISH CO P LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) IN this rule, which arises out of a proceeding under Section 16 (3) of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act, 1956, two points have been raised by the petitioner-landlady, namely, (1) that, there having been no notice given by the tenant under Section 16 (2) of the Act, the sub-tenant's present application under Sec. 16 (3) is not maintainable; (2) that the notice, given by the subtenant under Sec. 16 (2) to the landlady-petitioner, was not in accordance with law, it not being in or in accordance with the prescribed form and it was invalid, as one of the requisite particulars, namely, the date of creation of the said sub-tenancy, which is required to be given or mentioned therein under the relevant Rule 4 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy rules 1956, was inaccurate or incorrect.
(2.) THE relevant facts are all admitted and they stand as follows: opposite Party No. 2, the Netherlands Trading Society, also known as nederlandsche Handel-Maatschappij n. V. , Calcutta Agency, was the tenant :in respect of the disputed premises, comprising the middle flat on the first floor of Municipal Premises No. 7 Raja santosh Road, Alipore, Calcutta, at a rental of Rs. 250/- per month, according to the English Calendar. On and from May 1 1954, the said demised premises appears to have been sub-let to the petitioner by the said tenant opposite Party No. 2, at the same rental and according to the same english Calendar. When the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, came into force, the sub-tenant opposite party No. 1, gave a notice to the petitioner-landlady of its aforesaid sub-tenancy. The notice purported to have been given under Sec. 16 (2)of the Act and it was ex facie in the prescribed form under the relevant rule 4. But it appears now, or more accurately, it became apparent later on, that one of the particulars, mentioned in the said notice, namely, as to the date of creation of the sub-tenancy, vide Clause (f) of Rule 4, was wrong or wrongly given in that, instead of the correct date, May 1, 1954, it was mentioned as October 1, 1954. This error or inaccuracy is admitted but the sub-tenants case is that it was due to a bona fide mistake. This wrong date appears to have been repeated in the section 16 (3) application itself and there is little doubt that the error crept in, in both the notice and the application due to a bona fide mistake on the sub-tenant's part, as found by the lower Appellate Tribunal.
(3.) THE sub-tenant's application was rejected by the learned Rent Controller upon the view that the above inaccuracy, even if it was due to a bona fide mistake on the sub-tenant's part, was fatal to the validity of its notice under Sec. 16 (2) of the Act, as, according to the learned Rent Controller, the said Section and the connected Rule 4, should be strictly construed in the sense that the notice mentioned therein, must be accurately given in the prescribed form and any deviation or omission or inaccuracy, in the particulars given, would invalidate the same notice with the necessary consequence that no section 16 (3) application could be maintained upon it.;


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