Decided on March 03,1970



- (1.) THE tenant-defendant in a suit for ejectment is the appellant before us. He has lost in both Courts.
(2.) THOUGH various questions were raised in this appeal, eventually the only one we have to deal with is a question of law or, rather, of statutory construction in respect of section 3 (A)as inserted into section 13 of the west Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 by the West Bengal Premises tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, 1969, read with section 13 of the said Amendment Act.
(3.) IN section 13 of the principal act, there is provision for the protection of tenants against eviction and, in various clauses, it lays down the only grounds upon which a tenant of a premises governed by that Act can be ejected by a landlord, by suit. It is to be noted at once that in section 13 (1)the opening words are "notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court in favour of the landlord against a tenant except on one or more of the following grounds namely. . . . " It is evident that the bar which is imposed by section 13 (1) is aimed at the 'making of an order or decree' by the Court contrary to what is provided in sub-section (1) of the said act. It does not say anything to bar the institution of a suit. The language of section 3 (A), which has been inserted by the amendment Act of 1969, it may be noted at once, does not aim itself to the order or decree but to the institution of the suit for ejectment and runs as follows : "where a landlord has acquired his interest in the premises by transfer, no suit for the recovery of possession of the premises on any of the grounds mentioned in clause (f) or clause (ff) of sub-section (1) shall be instituted by the landlord before the expiration of a period of three years from the date of his acquisition of such interest. ";

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