MAYABATI HALDER Vs. RENT CONTROLLER CALCUTTA
LAWS(CAL)-1980-12-2
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on December 24,1980

SM. MAYABATI HALDER Appellant
VERSUS
RENT CONTROLLER, CALCUTTA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MUNIRUDDIN AKAND V. KASAMUDDIN MUNSHI [REFERRED TO]
HIRALAL GOENKA V. P. LANDER [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD AZAM V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
MADHO CHOWDHURY V. TURAB MIAN [REFERRED TO]
PURNA CHANDRA MOULIK V. DENGER CHANDRA PAL [REFERRED TO]
DOMOO SAHOO V. JITAN DUSADH [REFERRED TO]
ALI DAR V. MOHD. SHARIF [REFERRED TO]
SUBBAMMA V. KANNAPPACHARI [REFERRED TO]
RAM DULAL ACHARJEE V. BENODE BEHARI ACHARYYA [REFERRED TO]
ASHWIN NANUBHAI VYAS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

ASHOK KUMAR VS. ABDUL LATIF [LAWS(J&K)-1989-4-1] [FOLLOWED ON]
SANJAY MALHOTRA VS. TIMELY BOOKS CENTRE [LAWS(CAL)-2006-5-25] [REFERRED TO]
GOUR KISHORE DAS VS. KRISHNA KUMAR BOSE [LAWS(CAL)-1991-6-10] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDARA NARAYAN MISHRA VS. ASHOK [LAWS(MPH)-2014-11-133] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M.M.Dutt, J. - (1.)This appeal arises out of the judgment of Basak, J. discharging the Rule Nisi obtained by the appellant Sm. Mayabati Halder on her application under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.)Ranjit Kumar Nandy, the husband of the respondent No. 2 Sm. Aparna Nandy, was a tenant of two rooms of premises No. 51/B, Mohim Halder Street, Calcutta. On February 10, 1969, the said Ranjit Kumar Nandy filed a petition of complaint under Section 31 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 before the Rent Controller, Calcutta alleging inter alia that his landlady, the said Sm. Mayabati Halder had wilfully stopped the supply of tap water to the said premises by cutting and rendering unserviceable the water connection and had totally blocked and dosed the drain used for the purpose of outflow of garbage water from inside the said premises. The said application was registered as R. C. Case No. 71 of 1969. The appellant entered appearance in the proceeding started on the said petition of complaint and contested the tame by a petition of objection. As many at three witnesses were examined in the proceeding. Before the hearing was concluded, the complainant Ranjit Kumar Nandy died, on September 26, 1975.
(3.)On January 28, 1976 an application was filed by the respondent No. 2 Sm. Aparna Nandy, his widow, praying for her substitution in the proceeding in place of her deceased husband. The said application was opposed by the appellant. It was contended by the appellant that on the death of the complainant, the petition of complaint should be dismissed in view of the provision of Section 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. The learned Rent Controller by his order dated May 24, 1977 overruled the said contention of the appellant and directed that the respondent No. 2 Aparna Nandy should be allowed to continue the proceeding started on the petition of complaint filed by her husband, the deceased Ranjit Kumar Nandy.


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