SAROJ KUMAR BOSE Vs. JATINDRA NATH MONDAL
LAWS(CAL)-1963-4-10
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on April 11,1963

SAROJ KUMAR BOSE Appellant
VERSUS
JATINDRA NATH MONDAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

FADU JHALA V. GOUR MOHUN JHALA [REFERRED TO]
RAM GOPAL BYSACK V. NURUMUDDIN [REFERRED TO]
KUMAR KRISHNA NANDI CHOUDHURY V. LOKENATH MUKHERJEE [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY OF STATE V. DEBENDRALAL KHAN [REFERRED TO]
ASWINI KUMAR DAS V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
RAJA BRAJA SUNDAR DEB VS. MONI BEHARA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS (S. A. 598/57) is a second appeal on behalf of the defendant in a suit for rent for the years 1361-62 b. S. at a rent of Rs. 650/- per month on account of a fishery leased out to the defendant on 14th June 1952 by virtue of a registered deed of lease. The suit was decreed by the trial court and the judgment and decree were affirmed by the court of appeal below and the appeal to the court of appeal below was dismissed. Hence, the second appeal was filed on behalf of the defendant. The defense is that the plaintiffs' interest being that of an intermediary under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition act, the said interest vested in the state of West Bengal with effect from 1st Baisakh 1362 B. S. and therefore, the plaintiffs have no cause of action for the claim of rent for the year 1362 b. S.
(2.)ACCORDING to Mr. Ghosh on behalf of the defendant, the lease granted by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant was a lease of a fishery apart from a lease of land or subsoil. Hence, it is profit a prendre. This is, according to mr. Ghosh, an incumbrance within the meaning of the West Bengal Estates acquisition Act and, therefore, when the interest of the plaintiffs or their landlords vested in the State of West bengal, it vested free from this incumbrance. Therefore, the plaintiffs' right by virtue of a lease from the plaintiffs' landlord dated the 4th November 1914 has ceased to exist. The plaintiffs, therefore, cannot claim rent from 1st baisakh 1362 B. S. on which date the interest of the plaintiffs' landlord and that of the plaintiffs so vested in the state of West Bengal. There is no dispute that the plaintiffs' landlord was an intermediary being a proprietor.
(3.)MR. Ghosh next urges that supposing it is not an incumbrance, the defendant is a non-agricultural tenant within the meaning of the Estates Acquisition Act and the plaintiffs having an interest superior to that of the defendant, are intermediaries because of the definition of 'intermediary' in that act.


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