SMT. PROVARANI CHAKRABORTY AND ANOTHER Vs. SMT. GOURI MUKHERJEE AND OTHERS
LAWS(CAL)-2003-12-80
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on December 05,2003

Smt. Provarani Chakraborty And Another Appellant
VERSUS
Smt. Gouri Mukherjee And Others Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

12. PUSPA LATA DEBI V. DINESH CHANDRA DAS [REFERRED TO]
10. HEMANGINI DEBI V. SUKUMAR BASU [REFERRED TO]
1. SANTOSH HAZARI V. PURUSHOTTAM TIWARI (DECEASED) [REFERRED TO]
2. KULWANT KAUR V. GURDIAL SINGH MANN (DEAD) [REFERRED TO]
9. SIDDALINGAMMA V. MAMTHA SHENOY [REFERRED TO]
16. ASHWINKUMAR K. PATEL V. UPENDRA J. PATEL [REFERRED TO]
5. KABITA MUKHERJEE V. PADAM CHAND BANTHIA [REFERRED TO]
3. VEERAYEE AMMAL V. SEENI AMMAL [REFERRED TO]
BEGA BEGUM VS. ABDUL AHAD KHAN DEAD [REFERRED TO]
BHAIRAB CHANDRA NANDAN VS. RANADHIR CHANDRA DUTTA [REFERRED TO]
KONDIBA DAGADU KADAM VS. SAVITRIBAI SOPAN GUJAR [REFERRED TO]
DEENA NATH VS. POORAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
R C TAMRAKAR VS. NIDI LEKHA [REFERRED TO]
HIRALAL ROY VS. ARATI CHATTERJEE [REFERRED TO]
HIMANSHU BIKASH DAS VS. RAMENDRA MOHAN DUTTA [REFERRED TO]
AMALENDU GANGULY VS. MANJARI PAL [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Amitava Lala, J. - (1.)This second appeal arises out of dismissal of the ejectment suit only on the ground of reasonably requirement by the Court of first instance which has been affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Under normal circumstances, similar findings of the two Courts need not be interfered with but when perversity and/or glaring case of consideration of inadmissible evidence or no evidence arises, the Second Appellate Court has no other alternative but to test the case with the term of substantial question of law available therefrom particularly when such appeal is formally admitted by the Division Bench of the Court following the procedure. This is one of such cases.
(2.)At the time of admission the following points were formulated :
1) For that whether the Learned Court below acted within its jurisdiction to direct the landlord to act in a particular manner and adjust his own requirement and determine the requirement as per Court's perception ?

2) For that whether Learned Court below was correct in rejecting the claim of the plaintiffs without any specific finding about the bonafide requirement of the plaintiffs/landlords?

(3.)At the time of final hearing of the second appeal further following points are formulated by this Court at the suggestion of he parties :
1) Whether the Ld. First Appellate Court as final Court of facts was justified in affirming the findings of Ld. Trial Court without assigning its own reasons particularly in the context of changed circumstances as contemplated in the amended plaint and in evidence before Learned First Appellate Court?

2) Whether the Ld. Court below justified in suggesting and/or dictating as to how appellants/landlords would regulate and/or adjust their requirement.

3) Whether the findings recorded by the Ld. Courts refusing the decree for reasonable requirement are perverse and based upon non-consideration of materials on record.

4) Whether the Ld. Courts below justified in rejecting the claim of the appellants/landlords without any specific findings.

;


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