Skip to content


Lakshmi Kanta Jha Vs. Nilkanta Ghosal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy;Constitution
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSupreme Court Appeal No. 40 of 1969
Judge
Reported inAIR1971Cal224,75CWN1004
ActsConstitution of India - Article 133(1)
AppellantLakshmi Kanta Jha
RespondentNilkanta Ghosal and ors.
Appellant AdvocateP.N. Mitter and ;Manick Chandra Mitra, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateApurbadhan Mukherjee and ;Mukulgopal Mukherjee, Advs.
Cases ReferredIn Ramric Lal Saha v. Sachindra Narayan Roy
Excerpt:
- .....in dispute in the court of first instance, where the entire property was comprised within the disputed tenancy at a rental of rs. 362/- per month, would be above the said value. 6. the instant case, therefore, would satisfy the test of valuation required for purposes of clause (a) of article 133(1) of the constitution. the petitioners, therefore, would be entitled to a certificate under clause (a) of article 133(1) of the constitution and it is unnecessary to consider the matter under clause (b) of the above article. 7. we hold accordingly and direct that the petitioners be given a certificate under the said clause for leave to appeal to the supreme court from our judgment and decree, dated august 20, 1968. 8. let the necessary certificate be drawn up by the office in accordance.....
Judgment:

P.N. Mookerjee, J.

1. This is the landlord's application for a Certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution.

2. The matter arises out of a suit for ejectment of a tenant. The suit was decreed in full by the two courts below, but, in this Court, that decree was changed to a decree for partial eviction. Against this decree for partial eviction, the landlords are desirous of filing an appeal to the Supreme Court, and, accordingly, they have made the present application for a certificate under Article 133(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution.

3. There is no dispute that, in the instant case, the judgment of this Court is not a judgment of affirmance. The only point, therefore, will be whether the Instant case will satisfy the valuation test, required for purposes of the said clauses or any of them.

4. The matter was sent back to the Court below for a finding on the above question of valuation and according to that finding, which is sufficiently supported by the evidence on the point, properly read and analysed, the value of the property, which is to be retained by the tenant under the decision of this Court at a rental of Rs. 240/- per month, would be about a lakh of rupees. That, however, would not, by itself, be sufficient for answering the requisite test of valuation. The subject-matter in dispute would be the tenancy in question, that is, a tenancy bearing a rental of Rs. 240/-per month. The property, no doubt, in respect of which this tenancy is to be held, would, on the above finding, be of the value of Rs. 1,00,000/- From that, however, has to be deducted the value of the landlord's interest or reversion for the purpose of determining the value of the tenancy in dispute. Now, taking the capitalised value of the landlord's reversion at the reasonable figure of twenty years' purchase, it would come to near about Rs. 58,000/- and deducting the same from the value of the property, as stated hereinbefore, namely, Rs. 1,00,000/-, the balance would be Rs. 42,000/-, which would be the value of the tenancy in dispute and much more above the appealable value, namely, Rs. 20,000/- under Article 133(1) of the Constitution. In the above view, the value of the subject-matter in dispute before the Supreme Court in the instant case would be well over Rs. 20,000/-

5. There is no question also that, in the same manner, the value of the subject-matter in dispute in the court of first instance, where the entire property was comprised within the disputed tenancy at a rental of Rs. 362/- per month, would be above the said value.

6. The instant case, therefore, would satisfy the test of valuation required for purposes of Clause (a) of Article 133(1) of the Constitution. The petitioners, therefore, would be entitled to a Certificate under Clause (a) of Article 133(1) of the Constitution and it is unnecessary to consider the matter under Clause (b) of the above Article.

7. We hold accordingly and direct that the petitioners be given a Certificate under the said clause for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from our judgment and decree, dated August 20, 1968.

8. Let the necessary Certificate be drawn up by the office in accordance with law.

9. There will be no order for costs in this application.

10. Before concluding we would only add that the decision of this Court, In Ramric Lal Saha v. Sachindra Narayan Roy, : AIR1968Cal316 . on which reliance was placed on behalf of the opposite parties, is clearly distinguishable, as there the disputed tenancy or tenant's interest Could not be valued for want of necessary materials.

A.N. Chakrabarti, J.

11. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //