PRADIP KR. SENGUPTA Vs. CALCUTTA IMPROVEMENT TRUST
LAWS(CAL)-1996-12-20
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on December 05,1996

Pradip Kr. Sengupta Appellant
VERSUS
CALCUTTA IMPROVEMENT TRUST Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

LALLU YESHWANT V. RAO JAGADISH [REFERRED TO]
BISHAN DEVI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
PARVATIBAI SUBHANRAO NALAWADE VS. ANWARALIHASANALIMAKANI [REFERRED TO]
MIDNAPUR ZAMINDARY COMPANY LTD VS. KUMAR NARESH NARAYAN ROY [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

SATYABRATA SINHA,J. - (1.)THIS writ application is directed against a notice dated 30.10.96 as contained in Annexure 'F' to the writ application whereby and whereunder the respondent No. 3 refused to extend the period of licence/lease. This Court, in the facts and circumstances of this case, although contentions have been raised at the Bar, does not consider it necessary to decide as to whether the Agreement is governed under the provision of the West Bengal Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 or not.
(2.)HOWEVER there cannot be any doubt that the petitioner cannot be evicted forcibly.
This aspect of the matter is governed by a decision of this court in the case of Sukumar Banerjee v. Chairman, C.I.T. reported in 82 CWN 392 as also by the Supreme court of India in the case reported in AIR 1989 SC 993.

(3.)THE learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Parvatibai Subhanrao Nalawade v. Anwarali Hasanali Makani reported in AIR 1992 SC 1780. In that case the Supreme Court was considering a civil dispute between the parties arising out of a consent decree. In that case the tenant vacated the premises on express stipulation of the landlord that on construction of a new building the tenant would get identical area therein. The Apex Court observed that the landlord should honour the pledge given in the form of an undertaking. As there was a dispute as regard identification of a particular area in the building, the Apex Court remitted the matter back to the executing Court. The Apex Court however observed :-
"Before closing this judgment we would like to emphasise that in cases - relating to immovable properties which are governed by the ordinary civil law the High Court should not exercise its special jurisdiction under the Constitution unless the circumstances are exceptional. This aspect has been discussed by this Court earlier on several occasions."

;


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