AMAL DUTTA Vs. ISMAIL GHULAM HUSSAIN ARIFF, RECEIVER
LAWS(CAL)-1966-9-35
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 08,1966

AMAL DUTTA Appellant
VERSUS
ISMAIL GHULAM HUSSAIN ARIFF, RECEIVER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This appeal is by the Defendant and it arises out of a suit for eviction by the Plaintiff, who is the landlord and under whom, the Defendant was holding the suit premises as a tenant up till the determination or termination of the said tenancy.
(2.) The suit was filed on March 5, 1962. It is, admittedly, governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and the ground, taken in. the plaint for eviction of the Defendant, was the ground, mentioned in Section 13(1)(k) of the said statute. The said Clause (k) runs in these terms: Where subsequent to the creation of the tenancy, the tenant having agreed in writing with the landlord to deliver vacant possession of the premises to the landlord has failed to do so. The agreement, relied on for the purpose, is Ex. 1 in the case, of which the material terms and recitals are as follows: WHEREAS since the appointment of the said Ismail Ghulam Hussain Ariff as Receiver of the said wakf estates, the said Amal Dutta has been a monthly tenant of the said premises No. 13, Amratolla Lane, Calcutta, under the said Receiver.... And whereas by by mutual agreement the rent has been fixed at Rs. 200 per month with effect from August 1, 1960, payable according to English calendar month and whereas the said Amal Dutta recently expressed his desire to quit and vacate and deliver up the vacant possession of the said premises No. 13, Amratolla Lane, Calcutta, to the said Receiver on the expiry of the last day of August, 1963. Now this Deed witnesseth as follows: (1) The said Amal Dutta hereby agree to quit, vacate and deliver up peaceful vacant possession of the entire premises No. 13, Amratolla Lane, Calcutta, to the said Receiver on the expiry of the last day of August, 1963. No further formal notice to quit shall be required from either side. This indenture or agreement is signed by both the parties and the Plaintiff's claim for ejectment under the above Clause (k) is founded on this document.
(3.) The defence was that this agreement would be insufficient for purposes of the Defendant's eviction under the above statutory provision, Section 13(1)(k) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.;


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