Skip to content


Dina Nath Patak Vs. Ram Lal Patak - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1896)ILR23Cal200
AppellantDina Nath Patak
RespondentRam Lal Patak
Cases Referred and Hem Chunder Ghose v. Radha Pershad Paleet
Excerpt:
landlord and tenant - tenant at will--notice to quit--reasonable notice--ejectment, suit for. - .....the case of hem chunder ghose v. radha pershad paleet 23 w.r. 440 which was decided by officiating chief justice macpherson and mr. justice morris, in which the correctness of such a decree as is made in this case, under circumstances practically the same as those in the present case, is distinctly affirmed. it is true that in the case of jubraj roy v. mackenzie 5 c.l.r. 231, chief justice garth expresses some dissatisfaction with the decisions in the cases of mahomed rasid khan chowdhry v. jadoo mirdha 20 w.r. 401 and hem chunder ghose v. radha pershad paleet 23 w.r. 440, which we have just mentioned; but at the same time the learned chief justice says that the court is bound by them so long as they are not touched by a full bench, and mr. justice prinsep, who took part in the decision.....
Judgment:

Pigot, J.

1. We think the decision of the Judicial Commissioner must be affirmed. The case cannot be distinguished, in our opinion, from the case of Hem Chunder Ghose v. Radha Pershad Paleet 23 W.R. 440 which was decided by Officiating Chief Justice Macpherson and Mr. Justice Morris, in which the correctness of such a decree as is made in this case, under circumstances practically the same as those in the present case, is distinctly affirmed. It is true that in the case of Jubraj Roy v. Mackenzie 5 C.L.R. 231, Chief Justice Garth expresses some dissatisfaction with the decisions in the cases of Mahomed Rasid Khan Chowdhry v. Jadoo Mirdha 20 W.R. 401 and Hem Chunder Ghose v. Radha Pershad Paleet 23 W.R. 440, which we have just mentioned; but at the same time the learned Chief Justice says that the Court is bound by them so long as they are not touched by a Full Bench, and Mr. Justice Prinsep, who took part in the decision of that case, says that he concurs with those decisions.

2. We think that the decision of the Judicial Commissioner was right, and the appeal must be dismissed with costs.


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