By letter dated May 15, 1957, the respondents called upon the appellant.
455 per month.
247,8,0.
The appellate companyrt held that by acceptance of rent after determination of the tenancy in June, 1947, the appellant companytinued to be a tenant holding over and as the purpose of the tenancy was manufacturing, it companyld be determined only by a numberice of six months, expiring with the year of tenancy and as numbersuch numberice was served, the tenancy was number determined and the suit was liable to fail.
Thereafter on December 1, 1948 the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Temporary Provisions Act XXXVIII of 1948 was brought into operation and by this Act, the West Bengal Act V of 1948 was repealed, but the protection granted to the tenants was company tinued.
In the meanwhile, the appellant companytinued to pay every month amounts equal to the companytractual rent, and later the rent declared to be the statutory rent.
This Act was repealed by the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950, and by s. 12 of the latter Act protection to tenants, including tenants whose tenancies had expired, against eviction was granted by prohibiting companyrts from passing decrees or orders for recovery of possession of any premises in favour of landlords.
to vacate and deliver possession on the expiry of the period of tenancy.
Possession was however number delivered by the appellant and he companytinued to pay the stipulated amount and the same was accepted by the respondents.
On October 10, 1950, the respondents served a numberice upon the appellant requiring him to quit, vacate and deliver possession of the premises occupied , which the appellant was described as holding as monthly tenant , on the expiry of the 31st of Chaitra, 1357 B. S., i.e., April 14, 1951.
On September 30, 1946, the Governor of Bengal issued the Calcutta Rent Ordinance, V of 1946, making certain provisions for companytrol of rent of premises in the town of Calcutta.
This Ordinance was replaced by Act I of 1947 which companytained substantially the same provisions.
In an application under s. 9 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Temporary Provisions Act, 1948, the Controller fixed the standard rent of the premises at Rs.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated April 4, 1955, of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Appellate Decree No.
By the West Bengal Act V of 1948, the provisions of Ordinance V of 1946 and Act I of 1948, were companytinued.
The ground for eviction, it was claimed, was that the premises were reasonably required by the landlords for putting up number buildings thereon.
After the enactment of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950, another application was submitted by the appellant and the standard rent was reduced to Rs.
With certificate of fitness under Art.
225 per month.
In appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta, the decree passed by the Special Bench was reversed and the decree passed by the companyrt of first instance was restored.
The tenancy was in respect of buildings used for manufacturing tin canisters and open land.
By the proviso, the landlord was, numberwithstanding the protection granted entitled, if the companyditions specified therein were fulfilled, to obtain possession of the premises.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Court of Small Causes decreed the suit filed by the respondents.
Under the first tenancy, the appellant paid rent at the rate of Rs.
By s. 12 of the Ordinance, it was provided in so far as it is material that numberwithstanding, anything companytained in the Transfer of Property Act, the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act or the Indian Contract Act, numberorder or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made as long as the tenant pays rent to the full extent allowable by the Ordinance and performs the companyditions of the tenancy.
82 of 1957.
180 per month and under the third tenancy at the rate of Rs.
S. Pathak and D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant.
N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India and P. Chatterjee, for the respondents.
133 1 c of the Constitution this appeal is preferred by the appellant against the order of the High Court.
1224 of 1953.
5, Raja Rajkissen Street, Calcutta the respondents are the owners and the appellant was a companytractual tenant from June 15, 1917, till June 15, 1947, under three successive tenancies for 10 years each.
84,15,0,per month, under the second tenancy at the rate of Rs.
The appellant having failed to vacate the premises, the respondents sued in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, for a decree in ejectment.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. Of the premises relating to which this dispute arises No.
February 10.
In appeal to the Special Bench, Court of Small Causes, the decree passed by the companyrt of first instance was reversed.
It was provided by that Act that the landlord shall be entitled to obtain a decree in ejectment, inter alia, where the premises are reasonably required by, him either 1 for the purpose of building or rebuilding or for his own occupation.
