Skip to content


Pyari Lal Haldar Vs. Hem Chandra Sarkar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in14Ind.Cas.719
AppellantPyari Lal Haldar
RespondentHem Chandra Sarkar
Excerpt:
landlord and tenant - denial of relationship by tenant--forfeiture--decree of court--bengal tenancy act (vii of 1885). - .....sued the defendant for the rent of a holding. the defendant denied that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed. this defence prevailed, and the suit was dismissed, the plaintiff then appealed and in the appellate stage was allowed to withdraw his suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit. he then brought the present action to eject the defendant on the ground that in the former suit he had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant.3. we think it may be said to be settled by the current of decisions in this court that the mere denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant does not, in cases to which the bengal tenancy act of 1885 applies, work any forfeiture unless the denial was given effect to by a decree of the court. the only decree that here can be relied on is.....
Judgment:

1. This appeal raises a very short and, we think, a very simple question.

2. The plaintiff sued the defendant for the rent of a holding. The defendant denied that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed. This defence prevailed, and the suit was dismissed, The plaintiff then appealed and in the appellate stage was allowed to withdraw his suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit. He then brought the present action to eject the defendant on the ground that in the former suit he had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant.

3. We think it may be said to be settled by the current of decisions in this Court that the mere denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant does not, in cases to which the Bengal Tenancy Act of 1885 applies, work any forfeiture unless the denial was given effect to by a decree of the Court. The only decree that here can be relied on is a decree which has ceased to exist owing to the withdrawal to which we have referred above. The result seems to us to be that there is no decree whatever, and that all that we have is the mere denial to which effect has not been given by any decree of Court.

4. The question whether the defendant can be evicted is one which depends upon his status, and the plaintiff must be left to take such further steps as he may be advised to take in the matter.

5. The appeal must, we think, succeed and it is allowed with costs throughout.


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