SK ESIFAR RAHMAN Vs. SUFAL CHANDRA MALLICK
LAWS(CAL)-1970-1-8
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on January 12,1970

SK ESIFAR RAHMAN Appellant
VERSUS
SUFAL CHANDRA MALLICK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE only point, which arises in this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, relates to the question whether, under section 48f of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the consent of the landlord, required for the purpose of transfer of the under raiyati holding, would be satisfied by the consent of the ex-landlord, from whom the present landlord has got his interest by transfer or otherwise, or would require the consent of the present landlord during whose term the impugned transfer is effected.
(2.) IN the instant case, the transfer in question was made at a time, when respondent No. 1 was the landlord by purchase from the previous landlord etahar. The document of tenancy of the under-raiyati, which is claimed by the appellant by purchase from the previous under-raiyat, expressly contained a term, enabling the under-raiyat to transfer the holding and that documen was executed by the then landlord Etahar. The contention, raised on behalf of the respondent No. 1, which succeeded before our learned brother R. N. Dutt J. , was that the consent, required under section 48f must be consent of the landlord at the time, when the impugned transfer is made and the consent of the previous landlord, however wide and however much it may be contained in the document of lease, creating the under raiyati, would not be sufficient.
(3.) WE are unable to accept this contention on a reading of section 48f. Our learned brother, for the purpose of coming to the above conclusion and upholding the respondent No. 1's above contention, relied on the working of section 160 (g), where, for the particular purpose, relevant under that clause, permission in writing either of the present landlord or of his predecessor in title was expressly mentioned as sufficient and, according to our learned brother, having regard to those terms of section 160 clause (g), it must be taken that, where the Bengal Tenancy act intended that the consent of the previous landlord would be sufficient, it expressly made provision to that effect.;


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