Skip to content


Radhika Mohun Roy Vs. Uttam Parbat and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in55Ind.Cas.432
AppellantRadhika Mohun Roy
RespondentUttam Parbat and anr.
Cases ReferredDayamoyi v. Ananda Mohan Roy
Excerpt:
landlord and tenant - occupancy holding, non-transferable--sale of holding--tenant continuing in possession and paying rent, whether can be ejected. - .....from the vendor even after the transfer of which the landlord had notice.2. it appears to me that on these findings the landlord cannot succeed in ejecting defendant no. 2, the vendor. he has obtained a decree in ejectment against the purchaser, defendant no. 1.3. it is contended on the authority of the case of dayamoyi v. ananda mohan roy 27 ind. cas. 61 : 42 c. 172 : 18 c.w.n. 971 : 20 c.l.j. 52 that where the transfer is a sale of the whole holding, the landlord is entitled to recover khas possession even if there has been no abandonment. it was held in that case that under such circumstances, the landlord is ordinarily entitled to possession of the holding, bat in an ordinary case one would expect a sale of the whole interest of the raiyat to be followed by an abandonment of the.....
Judgment:

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment. The defendant No. 2 was a tenant of a non transferable occupancy holding and sold her interest to defendant No. 1. It is found that the vendor is still in possession and that rants have been accepted from the vendor even after the transfer of which the landlord had notice.

2. It appears to me that on these findings the landlord cannot succeed in ejecting defendant No. 2, the vendor. He has obtained a decree in ejectment against the purchaser, defendant No. 1.

3. It is contended on the authority of the case of Dayamoyi v. Ananda Mohan Roy 27 Ind. Cas. 61 : 42 C. 172 : 18 C.W.N. 971 : 20 C.L.J. 52 that where the transfer is a Sale of the whole holding, the landlord is entitled to recover khas possession even if there has been no abandonment. It was held in that case that under such circumstances, the landlord is ordinarily entitled to possession of the holding, bat in an ordinary case one would expect a sale of the whole interest of the raiyat to be followed by an abandonment of the holding or a cessation to pay rent. So far as I know, it has never been held that the landlord who is continuing to receive rents from a tenant, can eject that tenant on the ground that he had sold his holding.

4. The appeal fails and is dismissed with cots.


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