Skip to content


Mir Belayet Ali Vs. Radhikalal Das - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1930Cal547a
AppellantMir Belayet Ali
RespondentRadhikalal Das
Excerpt:
- orderrankin, c.j.1. in my opinion this rule must be discharged. in appears that the transferee paid money into court on the footing that he had taken transfer of an occupancy holding. in these circumstances, it appears to me that the landlords' right arose under the new clause in the bengal tenancy act and that, if the transferee has gone to expense in putting masonry buildings in the meantime upon the property he has done that at his own risk. this case cannot be treated as a case of encumbrance nor is it possible for the court to go outside the language of section 25(f)(2). ben. ten. act, and to order compensation which is not authorised thereby. the rule must, therefore, be discharged with costs. hearing fee one gold mohur.
Judgment:
ORDER

Rankin, C.J.

1. In my opinion this Rule must be discharged. In appears that the transferee paid money into Court on the footing that he had taken transfer of an occupancy holding. In these circumstances, it appears to me that the landlords' right arose under the new clause in the Bengal Tenancy Act and that, if the transferee has gone to expense in putting masonry buildings in the meantime upon the property he has done that at his own risk. This case cannot be treated as a case of encumbrance nor is it possible for the Court to go outside the language of Section 25(f)(2). Ben. Ten. Act, and to order compensation which is not authorised thereby. The Rule must, therefore, be discharged with costs. Hearing fee one gold mohur.


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