JAMNADAS SRINIVAS CO Vs. MATHUEADAS JADAVJI GUDGUD
LAWS(CAL)-1960-2-12
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on February 12,1960

JAMNADAS SRINIVAS CO Appellant
VERSUS
MATHUEADAS JADAVJI GUDGUD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS Revisional application is directed against an order passed against the petitioner landlord under section 25 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 directing him to pay the sum of Rs. 20/- as damages for the alleged refusal to grant a rent receipt to the opposite party after receiving one month's rent by postal money order.
(2.) THE case of the tenant Mathuradas jadavji Gudgud was that he was occupying the second floor of the house at 13, Hanspukuria Lane, under the petitioner Messrs. Jamnadas Srinivas Company at the rent of Rs. 165/- per month according to the Hindi Calendar, and that for the month of Jaistha 2013 S. Y. he sent Rs. 165/- by postal money order on the 28th June, 1956 and this was accepted by the petitioner on whose behalf some body signed the M. O. acknowledgment receipt on or before the 3rd July, 1956 which is the date of the postal seal on the acknowledgment; and thereafter the tenant, opposite party several times requested the petitioner by letter to send him the rent receipt for the month of Jaistha 2013 S. Y. but the petitioner did not comply with the request and did not send any such rent receipt. Accordingly, the opposite party filed an application under section 25 (2) of the W. B. Premises Tenancy Act on the 24th July, 1956 for recovery of damages equal to twice the monthly rent, that is, Rs. 330/-which is recoverable under the provisions of the section. The petitioner landlord appeared and contested the application. He admitted having received the rent for Jaistha, 2013 S. Y. by money order, but alleged that the rent receipt Lad been kept ready and the tenant did not come and receive the same, that the tenant sent the rent by postal money order unnecessarily with some motive, and that the petitioner was not bound to send the rent receipt by post to him.
(3.) THE learned Controller however held that having received the rent by postal money order, the landlord petitioner was bound under section 25 (1) to send the rent receipt within a reasonable time to the tenant, and as he failed to do so even in spite of repeated demand by letter he was liable to pay the damages under section 25 (2); but he allowed only Rs. 20/-by way of damages to the tenant.;


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