JAYANTI ROY Vs. DASS ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED
LAWS(SC)-2002-4-126
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on
April 30,2002
JAYANTI ROY
Appellant
VERSUS
DASS ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
DEV PHARMCY VS. NOVA INTERNATIONAL [LAWS(DLH)-2003-9-17] [REFERRED TO]DEVENDRA MOHAN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-1-37] [REFERRED TO]
IMTIAZ AHMAD VS. ADDL DIST JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2005-10-179] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL MATEEM VS. MEHANDI HASAN [LAWS(ALL)-2006-5-244] [REFERRED TO]
ARVIND KUMAR NITIN KUMARI MEMORIAL TRUST VS. NIMAD VANITA WISHWA KHANDWA [LAWS(MPH)-2004-4-36] [REFERRED TO]
BASUDEB GUCHAIT VS. SHANKAR KUMAR DAS [LAWS(CAL)-2004-2-80] [REFERRED TO]
BHASKARAN NAIR VS. P CHANDRAMATHIYAMMA [LAWS(KER)-2005-12-47] [REFERRED TO]
C VENKATASUBBU VS. K N SOLAIRAJAN [LAWS(MAD)-2004-10-29] [REFERRED TO]
D Meganathan VS. Annammal [LAWS(MAD)-2005-4-190] [REFERRED TO]
SAMEER KUMAR SHARMA VS. R MOHAN [LAWS(MAD)-2005-8-203] [REFERRED TO]
JAMALS VS. P SYAMALA PROPRIETRIX PRAJWAL ASSOCIATES [LAWS(MAD)-2005-8-156] [REFERRED TO]
MANGI LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
M.K. MAHAJAN VS. S.S. SODHI [LAWS(HPH)-2006-7-11] [REFERRED TO]
SRI RANA PRATAP SINGH VS. KANAKLATA [LAWS(UTN)-2004-9-33] [REFERRED TO]
UNITY REALTY VS. AMIT KUMAR MITRA [LAWS(CAL)-2013-3-76] [REFERRED TO]
MEHAR SINGH VS. BILWA MANGAL [LAWS(HPH)-2003-3-24] [REFERRED]
TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD VS. DELHI STATE ELECTRICITY WORKERS UNION [LAWS(DLH)-2015-1-170] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISHBHAI GORDHANDAS BOSAMIYA AND ORS VS. HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF PRADEEPKUMAR CHUNILAL BOSAMIYA AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2014-4-225] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP KISHORE DUTTA VS. N N SHARMA @ NARA NARAYAN SHARMA & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2016-9-100] [REFERRED]
LRS OF LATE SHRI MAHESH KUMAR VS. HANUMAN PRASAD GOYAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-2-214] [REFERRED TO]
AHMED @ MOHD. AHMED VS. KAMALUDDIN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-2-116] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD. MUSTAHSAN SIDDIQUI VS. SMT. RIZWAN AMRA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-1-630] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Dharmadhikari, J. -
(1.)Leave to appeal is granted.
(2.)The parties represented in the case are finally heard on merits of the appeal.
(3.)In the suit filed for eviction of the appellant from suit premises under the provisions of S. 17(2) and (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as Act), the application for amendment has been rejected by the trial Court and the order has been upheld by the High Court of Calcutta in revision under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant seeks to resist the eviction suit on the ground that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In the application filed under S. 17(2) and (2A) of the Act initially in paragraph 10, it was stated that Alamohan Dass was the licensee of the suit premises.
(2.)The parties represented in the case are finally heard on merits of the appeal.
(3.)In the suit filed for eviction of the appellant from suit premises under the provisions of S. 17(2) and (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as Act), the application for amendment has been rejected by the trial Court and the order has been upheld by the High Court of Calcutta in revision under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant seeks to resist the eviction suit on the ground that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In the application filed under S. 17(2) and (2A) of the Act initially in paragraph 10, it was stated that Alamohan Dass was the licensee of the suit premises.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.