NIRMALA AUDDY Vs. MONOROMA CHAKRABORTY
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Click here to view full judgement.
Amiya Kumar Mookerji, J. -
(1.)These two Rules were obtained by a tika tenant and are directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Third Court, Alipore, dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 7-A of the Calcutta Tika Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1969.
(2.)The landlady opposite party filed two applications for eviction under Section 5 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, against the petitioner on the ground of default and her own requirement for the purpose of construction of building on the disputed holdings. The Controller allowed the said applications on 17-9-1966 on the ground of default only; he found that the landlady did not require the land for the purpose of building. On appeal from the said order of the Controller, the appellate court found that the landlady proved her case of requirement. The petitioner moved this Court in Revision against the said appellate order. This Court affirmed the order of the appellate court, sent back the case to the Controller to proceed with the determination of compensation in accordance with proviso (ii) to Section 4 of the Act. In view of West Bengal Ordinance V of 1967, which came into force in the meantime, as a result, further proceedings for determination of compensation was stayed. On 30th October, 1969, the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1969, came into force. On the date of reopening of the Court after the X'mas Holidays, on January 2, 1970, the petitioner filed applications under Section 7-A of the Amendment Act for setting aside the order of ejectment. The controller dismissed the petitioner's said application upon the view that those applications were premature because compensation payable under (ii) of the proviso to Section 4 had not been determined as yet On appeal, the appellate court dismissed the petitioners applications upon the view that as the appeals from the order made on such applications by the landlady having been disposed of before the commencement of the Amendment Act, the provisions of the said Act did not apply to the instant case. The petitioner, being aggrieved against the said appellate order, moved this Court and obtained the present Rule.
(3.)The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the petitioner's applications under Section 7-A of the Second Amendment Act upon the view that the order of the appellate authority allowing the landlady's applications under Section 5 of the Act was final and conclusive in so far as the landlady's prayer for ejectment was concerned. As the appeal from such order had been disposed of before the commencement of the Amendment Act, 1969, the provisions of the said Act did not apply to the instant case.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.