ISWARI PROSAD Vs. N R SEN
LAWS(CAL)-1951-7-12
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on July 30,1951

ISWARI PROSAD Appellant
VERSUS
N.R.SEN Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

ALLCHIN V. COULTHARD [REFERRED TO]
CHINTAMANRAO VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

TULA VS. SADH [LAWS(HPH)-1961-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
SATYANARAIAN CHAMARIA VS. SEWMURAT SHARMA [LAWS(CAL)-1951-7-21] [REFERRED TO]
MAIMUNNISA BEGUM VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-1966-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
GODABARI DEBI GANERIWALLA VS. NAND KISHORE BAGARIA [LAWS(CAL)-1964-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
RAMASHANKAR PROSAD VS. SINDRI IRON FOUNDRY P LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1965-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
KANAILAL GHOSAL VS. ENA DUTTA [LAWS(CAL)-1972-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
SASHIBHUSAN PATI VS. MANGALA BISWAL [LAWS(ORI)-1953-1-9] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUNATH CHOUDHURY VS. BUDHI NAIK [LAWS(ORI)-1963-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
P V S VENCATACHELLUM VS. P V S KABALAMURTHY PILLAI [LAWS(MAD)-1954-5-12] [REFERRED TO]
MATHEW AYMANITHAL VS. COLLECTOR PHULBANI [LAWS(ORI)-1974-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
VAISHALI SATISH GANORKAR VS. SATISH KESHAORAO GANORKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2012-1-93] [REFERRED TO]
KISHORI LAL VS. STATE [LAWS(P&H)-1957-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
MILAP CHAND VS. DWARKA DAS [LAWS(RAJ)-1954-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK GANGADHAR SHEDGE VS. RAMESH GANGADHAR SHEDGE [LAWS(BOM)-2014-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
R D AGGARWALA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1974-5-24] [REFERRED TO]
RATNAMALA VS. STATE OF MYSORE [LAWS(KAR)-1967-8-16] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD MAQBOOL (MASTER) VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-1970-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
PIRTHI SINGH VS. STATE OF PEPSU [LAWS(P&H)-1953-5-23] [REFERRED]
MASTER MOHD MAQBOOL VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [LAWS(J&K)-1970-9-10] [REFERRED]
ASSISTANT MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CHENNAI VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S GLOBAL POWERTECH EQUIPMENT PVT LTD , CHENNAI AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2017-12-184] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Harries, C.J. - (1.)These are two connected civil revision cases arising out of orders made by learned Judges of the Small Causes Court vacating orders for ejectment which had been made under Section 12(3) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Provisions (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1948. In each of the cases the orders were vacated under the provisions of Section 18(1) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act of 1950, as amended by the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Act of 1950.
(2.)The facts giving rise to Civil Revision No. 1369 of 1950. can be shortly stated as follows: The petitioner was the owner of premises known as No. 12 Pollock Street, Calcutta, whereas the opposite party was a monthly tenant of one room on the first floor of the said premises paying a monthly rental of Rs. 24-12-0. The tenant failed to pay the rent payable by him for the three consecutive months of March, April and May, 1949, whereupon the petitioner brought proceedings in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, to eject the opposite party. By reason of Section 12(3) of the West Bengal Rent Control Act, of 1948 the tenant's interest was ipso facto determined upon his failure to pay the rent for the three consecutive months already mentioned and an order was made evicting the opposite party. This order had not-been executed when the West Bengal Rent Control Act of 1950, was passed and an application was made by the tenant under Section 18(1) of the-1950 Act. for vacating the order for possession. The arrears of rent were deposited in Court and an order was made vacating the previous order for possession and it is this order which is the-subject of this revision.
(3.)The petitioner in Civil Revision No. 1370' of 1950. is the owner of premises known as 44/1 Sir Hariram Goenka Street, Calcutta whereas the opposite party was the tenant of one room in the said premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 23-6-0. The tenant failed to pay the rent of these premises for three consecutive months after the West Bengal Rent Control Act of 1948, came into force and thereupon his interest in the said tenancy was ipso facto determined. Proceedings were brought by the petitioner in the Court of Small Causes for possession of this room and an order for possession was made in due course. It is to be observed that when the case was called on for hearing an application was made on behalf of the tenant for an adjournment on the ground that he was unable to attend. This application was rejected whereupon Counsel for the tenant confessed judgment and the order for possession was made on such confession with costs.


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