Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.18 seconds)The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Section 4 in Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act 1949 [Entire Act]
Manujendra Dutt vs Purendu Prosad Roy Chowdhury & Ors on 22 September, 1966
In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Manujendra Dutt v. Purnendu Prosad Roy Chowdhury. , the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act must be held to be really in the nature of a supplementary legislation, supplementing the Transfer of Property Act, imposing certain restrictions on the landlord's right to eject his tenant under the general law or under the contract of lease and not conferring any additional right on the landlord. The tenancy has to be determined, in any event, under the Transfer of Property Act or under the contract of lease with this addition that the requirements under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, also, would have to be complied with. The position, then, is that, where the Transfer of Property Act requires the notice for a lesser period, the longer period under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act would ultimately prevail or govern, and, where the Transfer of Property Act prescribes the longer period for the relevant notice, the lesser period under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act would be of no consequence; or, in other words, in the instant case, a six months' notice was necessary for terminating the petitioner's tenancy and, admittedly, such a notice has not been given.
1