CHAND KAUR Vs. NALINI ROY CHOUDHURY
LAWS(CAL)-1975-9-26
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 19,1975

CHAND KAUR Appellant
VERSUS
NALINI ROY CHOUDHURY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This Rule was obtained by the defendants against Order No.114 dated September 24, 1973, whereby their application under Section 17D of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was rejected. The facts appear to be as follows:
(2.)A suit was instituted by the opposite parties in 1960 for recovery of possession of premises Nos.30A and 31A, Chakraberia Lane, P.S. Ballygunge, Calcutta which the defendants nos.1 and 2, predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners, held as a monthly tenant. The ground for eviction was default in payment of rent from July 1957 to November 1957. The suit was decreed ex parte on June 5, 1962 and soon after it was restored. Thereafter an application for substitution of the legal representatives of the defendant no.2 was allowed on September 22, 1962 and they field an additional written statement adopting the written statement of defendant no.2 which was accepted. Again the suit decreed on contest on March 28 1963 in which Mr. Manmatha Nath Bose, pleader appeared for the defendants. On appeal, the decree was set aside and the case was sent back on remand. Thereafter the legal representatives of the defendant no.1 were substituted by an order dated March 19, 1964 and one Joy Deb Ghosh was appointed Court guardian on behalf of defendants nos. 1(b) to 1(f) by orders dated May 27, 1965 and August 12, 1965. The court guardian filed the written statement on December 12, 1956 on behalf of the said minors but no order appears to have been passed accepting the same. On June 13, 1966 an additional written statement was filed on behalf of the aforesaid substituted defendants through Mr. M. N. Bose which was duly accepted. No Vakalatnama filed by the court guardian or by Mr. Bose could be traced on record. The suit was thereafter decreed on Feburary 21, 1967 and in the decree it was mentioned that the minor defendants nos. 1(b) to 1(f) were represented by their natural guardian mother.
(3.)An appeal was preferred therefrom which was dismissed and thereafter a second appeal was filed in this Court being S.A. No. 813 of 1968 which, after admission, is pending.


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