Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.30 seconds)Section 16 in The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. [Entire Act]
Sriniwas Sureka vs Madanlal Sekhsaria And Ors. on 28 July, 1972
We are inclined to think that the Division Bench decision in Radhararti (supra) and the Special Bench decision in Sriniwas (supra) are no authorities for the proposition that the tenant ceases to be a tenant for allpurposes immediately with the passing of the decree for eviction against him by the Trial Court and, therefore, prosecutes his appeal against the decree for eviction as a trespasser, so to say.
Lakhmi Chand Khemani vs Smt. Kauran Devi on 5 November, 1965
13. We do not, as we cannot, dispute that in view of the provisions of Section 2(h) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, a tenant would cease to be a tenant when a decree for eviction is passed against him. But the question that would require serious consideration in these suits is whether the tenant, when he is prosecuting an appeal challenging that decree, would still be regarded to have ceased to be a tenant for all purposes. The decision of the Supreme Court in Lakhmi Chand v. Kauran Debi does not help us in deciding that question because in that case the tenant, against whom a decree for eviction was passed, challenged the said decree in the appellate court and then in revision in the High Court, but all without success. Section 2(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act governing the case also provided that a tenant does not include any person against whom a decree or Order for eviction has been passed. It appears, however, that the Authority concerned under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 refused to grant sanction to execute the said decree and the said decree, therefore, be came inexecutable for the time being and it was accordingly urged that the decree having thus become inexecutable for the time being and it was accordingly urged that the decree having thus became inexecutable for the time being, the tenant did not cease to be a tenant in spite of the decree. It is true that this contention was repelled by the Supreme Court; but it should be noted that in that case the appeal and also the revision against the decree for eviction already failed and, therefore, the question as to the status of a tenant during the pendency of an appeal against a decree for ejectment did not arise for consideration.
Satyanarayan Prosad vs Diana Engineering Co. on 29 January, 1951
It has been pointed out in Gojer Brothers (supra) that once an appeal, is filed against a decree, the appellate court would have to confirm, modify or reverse the decree and that and in all these cases the operative decree would be the decree of the appellate court, not only when it reverses or modifies the decree, but even when it confirms it and the decree under appeal would lose its identity and it may be urged that these observations in Gojer Brothers (supra) go to lend considerable support to the observations of this Court in Satyanarayan Prosad (supra) that on an appeal from a decree the matters covered and decided by the decree become "pending matters" and the decree shall obviously stand displaced by the appellate decree, in whichever way the appeal is eventually decided.
Chengalvala Gurraju vs Madapathy Venkateswara Row Pantulu ... on 19 January, 1916
We have given our serious consideration to these observations coming, as they do, from a Bench consisting of Sri Arthur Trevor Harries, C.J., and Banerjee J. In an old Madras Division Bench decision in Ckengalavala Gurraju v. Madapathy Venkateswara (A.I.R. 1917 Madras 597), Sir William Ayling and Kumarswami Sastri, JJ.,, also observed that "there can be little doubt that an appeal is only a continuation of the original proceeding, the decree passed by the appellate court being the decree in this suit .... and that on filing of an appeal the judgment ceases to be res judicata and becomes sub judice".
Praduman Kumar vs Virendra Goyal (Dead) By L. Rs on 11 March, 1969
In Praduman Kumar v. Virendra Goyal , the Supreme Court has construed (at 1351) the expression "the hearing of the Suit" to include the hearing of the appeal, "an appeal being a rehearing of the suit".
Gojer Bros. Pvt. Ltd vs Ratan Lal Singh on 1 May, 1974
It has been pointed out in Gojer Brothers (supra) that once an appeal, is filed against a decree, the appellate court would have to confirm, modify or reverse the decree and that and in all these cases the operative decree would be the decree of the appellate court, not only when it reverses or modifies the decree, but even when it confirms it and the decree under appeal would lose its identity and it may be urged that these observations in Gojer Brothers (supra) go to lend considerable support to the observations of this Court in Satyanarayan Prosad (supra) that on an appeal from a decree the matters covered and decided by the decree become "pending matters" and the decree shall obviously stand displaced by the appellate decree, in whichever way the appeal is eventually decided.