Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.28 seconds)
Documents citing Kumar Purnendu Nath Tagore And Ors. vs Narendra Nath Samanta on 20 August, 1940

Reliance Jute Mills Co. Ltd. vs Dukhi Shah S/O Dhandraj Shah And Anr. on 17 June, 1942

5. I am also of opinion that the rules should be discharged. I desire to say a few words regarding the reasons why I am unable to accept the interpretation put upon Section 3, Non-agricultural Tenancy (Temporary Provisions) Act, by my learned brother Mitter J. in Purnendu Nath v. Narendra Nath ('41) 28 A.I.R. 1941 Cal. 302. Section 3 is in the following terms:
Calcutta High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document

Sm. Rajabala vs Sm. Sukumari Debi W/O Gurupada Haldar ... on 13 January, 1947

4. It was contended by Mr. Mitter who appeared before us on behalf of the appellant that the present suit was not excepted from the operation of Section 3, Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy (Temporary Provisions) Act. In our opinion, this contention is sound and must prevail. It is undoubtedly true that in Purnendu Nath v. Narendra Nath , decided by Mitter J. his Lordship observed that the words "suit for ejectment on account of the non-payment of rent" in Section 3 of the Act only meant a suit for ejectment of a tenant whose rent was in arrear. He based this view of the section on the ground that as the law stood, non-payment of rent could not be a ground for ejectment, and accordingly the phrase, "suit for ejectment on account of the non-payment of rent" could only be taken as a phrase of descriptive character.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ganjee Sajun And Co. vs Lalji Agarwala And Ors. on 2 July, 1946

Thus in order to attract the operation of the Section what is necessary in that the suit or proceeding must be one for ejectment of a non-agricultural ten ant and the ejectment must be sought for on a ground-other than non-payment of rent. The words "on account of non-payment of rent" are somewhat unhappy and it has been pointed out by our learned brother Hitter J. in Puroendu Nath Tagore v. Narendra Nath Samanta that mere nonpayment of rent could not be a ground for ejectment of a tenant under the substantive law of this country. Our learned brother was constrained to interpret these words as referring to a suit for ejectment of a tenant whose rents were in arrears although the right to sue was based on grounds other than non-payment of rent.
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Rai Saheb Kumudnath Das, On Death His ... vs Protap Chandra Mazumdar And Ors. on 3 July, 1941

5. In order to attract the operation of this section, it is necessary that the suit must be one for ejectment of a non-agricultural tenant, and ejectment must be sought for on a ground other than non-payment of rent. Strictly speaking the right of a landlord to recover immovable property from his tenant arises when the relationship of landlord and tenant has ceased between themselves, and the tenant has lost his right to remain in possession of the property. The word 'tenant', therefore, means here an ex-tenant whose tenancy has been determined in one of the ways recognized by law, and it is the determination of the tenancy that constitutes the cause of action of the suit. The section places one restriction in this respect, namely, that the claim for eviction should not be based upon mere non-payment of rent. These words are somewhat ambiguous, and my learned brother Mitter J. was constrained to interpret this expression as referring to a suit for ejectment of a tenant whose rent was in arrears, though the right to sue was based on other grounds and not upon non-payment of rent: Purnendu Nath v. Narendra Nath . The interpretation seems to us to be somewhat farfetched. The words undoubtedly are unhappy, but if they have got any meaning, in our opinion they cannot but refer to that class of cases where under the terms of the lease itself the lessee forfeits his tenancy by reason of non-payment of rent. As a relief against forfeiture in such cases is provided in Section 114, T.P. Act, the Legislature probably thought it proper to exempt this class of cases from the operation of Section 3, Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, It is not, however, necessary for us to express any final opinion on this point in the present case.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document

Ram Charit Bhakat And Ors. vs Tetari Kumari Kuor Of Nithpur on 17 June, 1941

5. Finally, even if the petitioner is a non-agricultural tenant and even if the appeal is a part of the suit, the suit cannot be stayed under the provisions of Section 3. The difficulty of interpreting that section was pointed out and its meaning explained by Mitter J. in Purnendu Nath v. Narendra Nath . If the defendant is a non-agricultural tenant then she was in arrears with her rent at the time when the suit was brought. The rule is accordingly made absolute. The order of the lower appellate Court is set aside and he is directed to hear and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. The opposite party will pay the petitioner's costs, hearing fee being assessed at three gold mohurs.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1