T S GUPTA Vs. KANAHIALAL RUIA
LAWS(CAL)-1963-9-14
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 18,1963

T S GUPTA Appellant
VERSUS
KANAHIALAL RUIA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

THOM V. SMITH [REFERRED TO]
MIDDLETON V. BALDOCK [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

AJAYENDU PAUL VS. K.C. PAUL AND COMPANY (P.) LTD. [LAWS(CAL)-1968-5-45] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS appeal is directed against an order of the learned trial Judge, recording a compromise, on which disputes had arisen between the parties.
(2.)THE suit in question was a suit for ejectment, brought by the landlord, the plaintiff respondent, against the tenant, the defendant appellant In respect of the disputed premises, namely, a shop room and a verandah in the ground floor of premises No. 125, Harrison Road. The tenancy carried a rental of Rs. 60/- per month and it ran according to the Hindi calendar (Bodi l to Sudi 15 ). The suit was preceded by a notice of ejectment, which is dated June 30, 1956, and which appears to have been served on July 4, 1956, expiring with the end of Sawan Sudi 15 (Sambat year), corresponding to August 21, 1956. The suit was brought, so far as the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act, 1956, is concerned, by which it is, admittedly, governed, on the ground of the plaintiff's reasonable requirement of the disputed premises for his own use and occupation. That also was stated in the above notice. The suit was filed on November 14, 1956. On the 3rd January following, the defendant filed his written statement, denying inter alia the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the validity and sufficiency of the notice of ejectment and also the plaintiff's case of reasonable requirement.
(3.)ON the above pleadings, issues were framed by the court on May 22, 1957, and the first three issues were framed on the above three defences. On June 10, 1958, a joint application for time was filed by both parties to enable them to file terms of settlement, which were stated to have been already signed by them on May 20, 1958. In the said application, it was stated that the said terms were with the plaintiff's agent J. Misra, who was then away but was expected to come back within three or four days. In the circumstances, an adjournment of the suit was prayed for by the parties. The suit was, accordingly, adjourned to June 18, 1958, when the plaintiff filed his present application under Order 23, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recording the compromise, of which a memorandum was filed along with the said petition. The defendant immediately objected to the plaintiff's application on the ground that all the terms, agreed upon between the parties, had not been recorded in the said memorandum. On August 20, 1958, an application was filed by the defendant, purporting to elucidate his above objection, and, on the 29th following, the defendant applied for time on certain grounds. The defendant filed further objections to the plaintiff's above application on december 8, 1959. Thereafter, the plaintiff's aforesaid application was taken up for hearing and, after a prolonged hearing, the said application was allowed by the learned trial Judge on June 28, 1961, and, against his said decision, the present appeal was; filed on July 26, 1961.


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