Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)
Nilkantha Pati vs Kshitish Chandra Satpati And Ors. on 7 September, 1950 cites

Ram Lal Dutt Sarkar vs Dhirendra Nath Roy on 15 December, 1942

In this state of the law the Judicial Committee delivered its opinion in Ramlal Dutt v. Dhirendra Nath . In this case the facts were that possession of 83 bighas out of a total of 1464 had not been given to the lessee when the tenancy was created. It was further found that the successive lessees had not insisted on getting back possession of that area and for more than 50 years the entire rent had been paid by the tenants, C. C. Ghose and Bartley JJ. who had delivered the judgment in the High Court, had, on a consideration of the above facts, concluded that the doctrine of suspension of rent as found in English cases could not be applied rigidly in this country. It should be regarded as a rule of justice, equity and good conscience. As the area of which possession had not been delivered was comparatively speaking very small and the full rent had been paid from a very long time without any objection, the tenant should not be allowed to hold a very large area still in his possession free of rent in perpetuity, as there was no reasonable chance of the landlord being able, at this distance of time, to deliver possession of that small area.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Dwijendra Nath Roy Chaudhuri And Anr. vs Aftabuddi Sardar And Ors. on 25 August, 1916

13. This decision definitely overruled the view expressed in the earlier cases that if the rent stipulated is so much per bigha and the tenant has not been put in possession of a portion at the inception of the tenancy of the land leased, the doctrine of suspension of payment of rent would be attracted. This expression of opinion was further taken to be in affirmance of the view expressed in earlier cases, Dwijendra Nath v. Aftabuddin Sardar, 21 C. W. N. 492: (A.I.R. (4) 1917 Cal. 177) that if the rent settled be a lump one and the landlord is responsible for the eviction of the tenant during the subsistence of the tenancy from a portion of the land demised, the tenant is entitled to a total suspension of rent.
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Dhirendra Nath Roy And Ors. vs Bhabatarini Debi And Ors. on 24 July, 1928

Everywhere the portion dispossessed is found to be very small in comparison with the total area still in possession of the tenant, relief was granted in favour of the tenant by suspending rent in its entirety; Suresh Chandra v. Mathura Nath , Dhirendra Nath v. Bhabatarini Debi , Mahim Chandra v. Karam Ali affirmed on Letters Patent Appeal by C. C. Ghose and Mallick JJ. on 8-1-1929, Abhoya Charan v. Hem Chandra and Mahomed Ali v. Karam Ali .
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Abhoya Charan Sen And Ors. vs Hem Chandra Pal And Ors. on 5 March, 1929

Everywhere the portion dispossessed is found to be very small in comparison with the total area still in possession of the tenant, relief was granted in favour of the tenant by suspending rent in its entirety; Suresh Chandra v. Mathura Nath , Dhirendra Nath v. Bhabatarini Debi , Mahim Chandra v. Karam Ali affirmed on Letters Patent Appeal by C. C. Ghose and Mallick JJ. on 8-1-1929, Abhoya Charan v. Hem Chandra and Mahomed Ali v. Karam Ali .
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Dhunput Singh vs Mahomed Kazim Ispahain And Ors. on 10 July, 1896

There had been, however, dissentient opinion, in some of the cases as had previously been expressed in Dhunput Singh v. Mahomed Kazim, 24 Cal. 296. It had been held that even if the rent be a lump one and the interference committed by the landlord is in respect of a portion of the property, though the ordinary rule is that there should be suspension and no apportionment of rent, but if the interference be in respect of only a certain small portion of the demised property, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the rent for the portion of the tenancy still in possession of the tenant.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Tirthabala Dasi W/O Sangliram vs Srila Srijukta Uday Chand Mahtab And ... on 16 March, 1944

23. Tirthabala v. Uday Chand Mahatab was not a case of eviction of the tenant by the landlord, but in that case an attempt had been made by the landlord to disturb the possession of the tenant. The landlord in this case had issued a notice calling upon the subordinate tenants not to pay rents. The landlord did not interfere actively with the collection of rent by the patnidar after it became known to the landlord that he was not entitled to do so. The earlier notice to the subordinate tenants, however, had not been withdrawn. On these facts, the Court expressed the view that total suspension of rent was not called for.
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Suresh Chandra Samaddar And Ors. vs Mathura Nath Gain And Ors. on 9 April, 1925

Everywhere the portion dispossessed is found to be very small in comparison with the total area still in possession of the tenant, relief was granted in favour of the tenant by suspending rent in its entirety; Suresh Chandra v. Mathura Nath , Dhirendra Nath v. Bhabatarini Debi , Mahim Chandra v. Karam Ali affirmed on Letters Patent Appeal by C. C. Ghose and Mallick JJ. on 8-1-1929, Abhoya Charan v. Hem Chandra and Mahomed Ali v. Karam Ali .
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1