Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.23 seconds)
Documents citing Baidya Nath Banerji vs Himangsu Bala Bose And Anr. on 24 September, 1948

Santosh Kumar Gupta vs Smt. Chinmoyee Sen on 20 May, 1966

We are not disputing the proposition of law, laid by P.N. Mookerjee and Sarkar, JJ. in the case of Baidya Nath v. Nirmala Bala, , but the said decision does not help Mr. Chakravarti, as the defendant's tenancy in the said reported decision, commenced from April 7, 1945 under a registered lease. It was not a tenancy according to the English Calendar month. The second contention is without any merit and we hold that the suit is maintainable and it is not necessary to state the date of commencement of the tenancy both in the notice and in the plaint.
Calcutta High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Adhir Kumar Das vs Sm. Juthika Sen on 12 January, 1981

5. Three-fold submissions have been made on behalf of the appellant. It has been argued that according to the provisions of Section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, one month's notice expiring with the month of the tenancy has to be given. The tenancy commenced from the 19th of the English month. So the tenancy is from the 19th to the 18th of the following month according to the English calendar. The rent was paid and accepted according to the English calendar. But thai alone is not sufficient. The Bench cases of C. M. & T. Company v. Charu in and Baidya Nath v. Nirmala Bala in have been cited. The suit was filed in 1966, when the amended provisions of Section 13 (1) (ff) of the Act were not introduced by the amendment Act of 1969. But after that amendment, the plaintiff did not make any amendment of the plaint stating that she was not in possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere, within the meaning of that Clause (ff).
Calcutta High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1