Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.16 seconds)
Jahar Lal Manna vs Sri Tarakeswar Jew'S Shebait And Ors. on 4 February, 1972 cites

Kubir Malla vs On The Death Of Titu Bibi Her Heir Manik ... on 3 August, 1960

10. Now, Article 3 in Schedule III to the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885 applies to a suit by a raiyat or an under-raiyat who is seeking fo recover possession. Obviously the Article contemplates that the raiyat or the under-raiyat was in possession : he has been dispossessed : and he is trying to recover possession. There was a difference of Opinion in our Court as to the nature of dispossession which Article 3 envisaged. One view was that the dispossession must be by the landlord himself. The other view was that any form of dispossession was enough to bring the suit within the scope of Article 3. Fortunately for us, the controversy has now been settled by a Full Bench decision of our Court in the case Kubir Malla v. Manik Mallik, . Our Full Bench is of the view that since Schedule III, Article 3 finds place in a statute which, according to its preamble, is intended "to amend and consolidate enactments relating to the law of landlord and tenant", the word 'dispossess' in the third column of this Article means dispossession by the landlord or by an authorised agent of the landlord acting within the scone of his authority : the mere fact that the landlord brought the holding to sale does not justify an inference of implied undertaking by him to recognise the third party auction-purchaser as his tenant in the absence of any evidence to that effect : further under the present law the recognition of the purchaser as a tenant does not depend upon any 'implied offer' by the landlord to recognise him as a tenant : the purchaser's right is now a statutory right as provided in Section 26-C which can be enforced even against the will of the landlord : hence if in the execution of a decree for rent obtained against a tenant by the landlord a third party purchases the right, title and interest of the defaulting tenant or the holding itself and dispossesses the original tenant the dispossession is not to be deemed to be dispossession by or on behalf of the landlord so as to attract the special limitation provided in Schedule III, Article 3.
Calcutta High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - R S Bachawat - Full Document
1