Skip to content


Krishna Lal Mazumdar Vs. Manindra Nath Banerjee - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Rule No. 89 of 1951
Judge
Reported inAIR1953Cal231,56CWN258
ActsWest Bengal Premises Ren Control (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Act, 1950 - Sections 5, 6 and 18(1)
AppellantKrishna Lal Mazumdar
RespondentManindra Nath Banerjee
Appellant AdvocateHaridas Gupta, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateHirendra Chandra Ghose, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....an application by the tenant defendant for relief under section 18 of the west bengal premises rent control (temporary provisions) act, 1950. 2. a suit for possession was decreed on 25th november 1949. on 24th may 1950 an application was made under section 18 of the rent control act, 1950, for relief and by consent the amount of the outstanding arrears of rent etc. was fixed at rs. 1952/11/3. the amount was deposited, but the landlord refused to accept the same and moved the high court in revision against the order of the court vacating the decree for possession upon deposit of the amount due. the revision application was allowed by this court and the rule was made absolute. the result was that the tenant's application for relief under the 1950 act stood rejected and the order for.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Harries, C.J.

1. This is a petition from an order of a learned Judge of the Small Cause Court dis-missing an application by the tenant defendant for relief under Section 18 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950.

2. A suit for possession was decreed on 25th November 1949. On 24th May 1950 an application was made under Section 18 of the Rent Control Act, 1950, for relief and by consent the amount of the outstanding arrears of rent etc. was fixed at Rs. 1952/11/3. The amount was deposited, but the landlord refused to accept the same and moved the High Court in revision against the order of the Court vacating the decree for possession upon deposit of the amount due. The revision application was allowed by this Court and the rule was made absolute. The result was that the tenant's application for relief under the 1950 Act stood rejected and the order for possession remained. This was the state of affairs, when on 4th December 1950, the application giving rise to these proceedings was made asking for relief under the 1950 Act as amended by the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Amendment Act, 1950.

3. Relief could be granted under that Act if the case fell either within the provisions of Section 5 or Section 6 of the Amending Act. Section 5 of the Amending Act deals with cases where applications under Section 18 (1) of the 1950 Act were pending when the Amending Act was passed and with suits which were pending when that Act was passed.

4. The learned Judge had pointed out that when the amending Act was passed no application under Section 18 (1) of the 1950 Act was pending and no suit was pending as an order had been made for possession which was not appealed from. That being so, Section 5 is of no assistance to the petitioner.

5. It is suggested that relief can be given by reason of Section 6 of the Amending Act. But it is quite clear that the petitioner cannot bring his case within that section. That section only applies if at any time between the commencement of the 1950 Act and the Amending' Act an order or decree for recovery of possession of any premises has been made. This order for recovery was not made between these dates, but had been made long before.

6. In my view the learned Judge was right in holding that no relief could be given under the provisions of the Amending Act and that being so, this revision fails and is dismissed with costs.

7. The Rule is discharged.

8. Let the affidavit in opposite filed in Courtto day be kept on the record.


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