ARUN KUMAR SEN Vs. SATINDRA NATH GOSWAMI
LAWS(CAL)-1983-7-1
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on July 20,1983

ARUN KUMAR SEN Appellant
VERSUS
SATINDRA NATH GOSWAMI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS application under Article 227 of the Constitution of india is directed against order dated november 26, 1982 passed by Rent Controller, Calcutta, in R. C. Case No. 6/82 E. V. C. by the said order the application of the landlords under section 29b of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1957 has been dismissed by the Rent Controller on a finding that the landlords were not entitled to the benefit of the said section.
(2.) TWO landlords, who are brothers, jointly filed the application on the allegation that the disputed premises pursuant to a partition amongst co-sharers had been allotted to them exclusively and they had become full owners of the suit premises. They further alleged that applicant No. 1 Arun kumar Sen was an Entomologist in the medical Department of Arunachal Pradesh and was residing in a Government residential quarters at Mia, District Tirap, Arunachal pradesh, which he vacated on Superannuation with effect from 31. 12. 1981 according to the Government Rules. The proceedings were started on 27. 5. 1982. With regard to the applicant No. 2 Prosanta Kumar Sen it was alleged that he was an employee under the Directorate of Agriculture, government of West Bengal, and was residing in a rented house at Subhas Gram, 24-Parganas. He alleged that he was posted at Diamond Harbour and the Government had refused to provide him with accommodation in Government quarters as he was in possession of a house in Calcutta.
(3.) ON the aforesaid allegations the two landlords wanted to avail themselves of the provisions of section 29b of the Act and started the proceedings before the Rent controller. The sum and substance of the reasons given by the Rent Controller for dismissing the application is that applicant no. 1 having retired from Government service was not entitled to the benefit if the aforesaid section 29b. With regard to applicant No. 2 the learned Rent Controller held that he, not having been provided with government quarters at any time, was not entitled to the benefit of section 29b.;


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