Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.65 seconds)Section 13 in The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. [Entire Act]
The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
Section 14 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Promotha Nath Mazumdar vs Nagendra Nath Mazumdar on 7 June, 1929
15. Mr. Asoke Banerjee, the learned Advocate appearing with Mr. Bidyut Kumar Roy, learned Advocate for the respondent/plaintiff/landlady has drawn my attention to changing conditions of the society in order to determine the need of the reasonable requirement of the plaintiff in the instant case. Mr. Banerjee argues before me that the term "fraud on statute" is something else which is not applicable to the instant case. As regards the case laws cited by the learned Advocate for the appellant Mr. Banerjee submits before me that his reply lies in the ratio decided in the case of Promotha Nath Mazumdar v. Nagendra Nath Mazumdar (33 CWN 1211). It was held in that case that when evidence has been fully placed before the trial Court and that Court has decided the several points involved, the Court of Appeal, if it cannot agree with the decisions, must come to proper findings of its own; it is entirely wrong and a shirking of duty to send the case back for a de novo trial with an exposition of points of law involved.
V. N. Sarin vs Major Ajit Kumar Poplai on 9 August, 1965
17. Thus, it is clear that the appellant having not pressed his claim as regards the provisions of Section 13(3A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and with the lapse of mischief period of three years in course of the pendency of the suit before the trial Court and also in view of the settled position of law in this regard and keeping the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarin (supra) I do not find any question of fraud on statute in the instant case. But the legal gimmick is very much patent in the instant case as it is evident from the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case the plaintiff's daughter has been living in a rented accommodation with her husband. There are several criminal litigations between the parties. The plaintiff appear to have taken several grounds for eviction of the tenant namely causing nuisance and annoyance, causing damage to the suit property, unauthorised addition and alteration made at the instance of the tenant, default in payment of rent and reasonable requirement as added ground subsequently by way of amendment but the trial Court awarded protection to the defendant/tenant under Section 17(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and the plaintiff had lost all those grounds except the ground of default. But before the lower appellate Court the appellant/landlord succeeded on the ground of reasonable requirement. The plaintiff is the only issue of her parents and so there was every probability that the plaintiff would succeed to the property left by her parents and naturally this question is posed as to what prompted the father of the plaintiff to make gift of the suit property in favour of her daughter. It has been urged by the learned Advocate for the appellant before me that this is nothing but a device made by the father of the plaintiff who was the original landlord of the defendant in order to make the ground of reasonable requirement successful.
Regional Manager & Anr vs Pawan Kumar Dubey on 8 March, 1976
14. Mr. Chatterjee has then referred to the ratio decided in the case of Regional Manager and Anr. v. Pawan Kumar Dubey . It was held in that case that it is the rule deducible from the application of law to the facts and circumstances of a case which constitutes its ratio decidendi and not some conclusion based upon facts which may appear to be similar. One additional or different fact can make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases even when the same principles are applied in each case to similar facts. I fail to understand as to how the principle decided in the said case is applicable to the instant case.
Chetan Textiles, Bombay vs Jethabhai Hirji & Co. And Ors. on 6 July, 1984
In this connection, Mr. Chatterjee has referred to the ratio decided in the case of Chetan Textiles, Bombay v. Jethabhai Hirji & Co. . In the said case it was held that the spirit behind Order 14 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code is to have all issues decided at a time, except where an issue of law only arises as contemplated in the said Order and Rule. It was observed in that case that where in a suit (regarding money claim) issues are framed and the Court declines to decide the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and proceeds to record evidence on all the issues, it is not open to the Court in such case to give a finding only on the issue of jurisdiction and order return of plaint for presentation to the proper Court on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction. Such a course is not permissible under the law in view of the mandate under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code and in view of that clear mandate the High Court in appeal will not enter into the merits of the finding on the issue of jurisdiction especially when the issue of jurisdiction in the case was not an issue of law only. It was held in that case that the proper course for the High Court would be to set aside the order of the trial Court directing return of the plaint and remand the case to the trial Court for the purpose of recording findings on all the remaining issues and disposing of the suit thereafter according to law.
Talati Kantilal Bhumabai And Anr. vs Lalitaben on 26 July, 1977
7. Mr. Chatterjee has also referred to the ratio decided in the case of Talati Kantilal Bhumabai v. Lalitaben, . In the said case the Gujarat High Court held that the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Godhra had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit filed by the respondent setting aside the finding of the learned Civil Judge that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, the plaint must be returned for presentation to the proper Court, the High Court remanded the suit to the trial Court with a direction to determine the other issues raised in the suit in the light of the evidence on record and in accordance with law. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that in view of the fact that the entire evidence in the case had been recorded by the trial Court and considering that nine years have already passed over the decision of a preliminary point, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that it would be undesirable to dispose of that matter piecemeal and the interests of justice required premptorily that the trial Court should proceed to dispose of the suit on the issues which it had not then decided. From both the judgments referred to by Mr. Chatterjee I do not find anything that the appellate Court cannot dispose of any issue on the basis of the evidence on record.
1