GOBINDA SHAW Vs. BIBHISHAN SINGH PODDAR ALIAS BHABIKHAN SINGH PODDAR
LAWS(CAL)-1963-8-8
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on August 06,1963

GOBINDA SHAW Appellant
VERSUS
BIBHISHAN SINGH PODDAR ALIAS BHABIKHAN SINGH PODDAR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAGHUMULL KHANDENWALL V. OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE [REFERRED TO]
MUST. RAMANANDI KUER V. MUST KALAWATI KUER [REFERRED TO]
JIWANLAL AND CO. AND OTHERS V. MANOT AND CO.,LTD. [REFERRED TO]
SIMPER V. COOMBS [REFERRED TO]
DENMAN V. BRISE [REFERRED TO]
SHARMA ELECTRIC ENGINEERING WORKS VS. RADHA DEBI [REFERRED TO]
SHARMA ELECTRIC ENGINEERING WORKS VS. RADHA DEVI [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE only point I have been called upon to decide in this appeal by the tenant defendant from an appellate judgment and decree of affirmance in an action in ejectment is if I should keep the tenancy intact directing the appellant to vacate the premises in controversy within a certain date so that the respondent landlord may build and rebuild without the tenant being ejected.
(2.)MR. Ghose, the learned advocate for the appellant, confines himself to this point and this point only, abandoning and for good reasons too-the other contention of the notice to quit being bad at law.
(3.)LET me first get at the facts either no longer in the realm of controversy or concluded by the concurrent findings of the courts below. One, the tenancy has been determined by the notice to quit. Two, the landlord reasonably requires the suit premises to complete his unfinished construction. Three, the statutory balance sheet in terms of the explanation to clause (h) to sub-section (1) of section 12 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 17 of 1950, (by which this litigation is governed), works in favour of the landlord. Greater inconvenience will be caused to him than to the tenant, the appellant before me. Four, the judge of first instance does not determine the requirement of the landlord for his own occupation or the occupation of his son. Nor does the appellate judge, before whom the point is not pursued. The fourth fact just set out Mr. Ghose seizes. Having done so, he argues that the landlord's action then boils down only to requirement for building and rebuilding. Once that is that, Mr. Ghose continues, the test of comparative public benefit or disadvantage by extending or diminishing accommodation has got to be applied. And if that is applied, Mr. Ghose concludes, it is for me to harmonies the rights of the landlord with the protection the tenant needs, no less with the purposes of the 1950 Act, as Chatterjee, J. does in (1) Jiwanlal and Co, and others v. Manot and Co. , Ltd. , 64 C. W. N. 932.


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