MAULAVI ABDUR RUB FIROZE AHMED & CO. versus JAY KRISHNA ARORA

MAULAVI ABDUR RUB FIROZE AHMED & CO. versus JAY KRISHNA ARORA

Where the value of the premises exceeds Rs. 10,000/-, the Calcutta High Court has jurisdiction under section 20 and its Schedule, irrespective of the suit value pleaded; a landlord is not barred in law from seeking eviction for residential purpose even if the premises was used by the tenant for business, provided...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Defendant Appellant: Maulavi Abdur Rub Firoze Ahmed & Co.; Plaintiff Respondent: Jay Krishna Arora
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 October 1975
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Decree of Calcutta High Court, Appeal From Original Decree No. 21 of 1972, by Certificate
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, Eviction on Grounds of Landlord's Personal Requirement, Court Jurisdiction and Valuation
Rent Control Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 Eviction on Grounds of Landlord's Personal Requirement Court Jurisdiction and Valuation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maulavi Abdur Rub Firoze Ahmed & Co.

Defendant Appellant

Jay Krishna Arora

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Decree of Calcutta High Court, Appeal From Original Decree No. 21 of 1972, by Certificate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Calcutta High Court had jurisdiction to try the eviction suit under section 20 and Schedule of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956
  2. 2 Whether a landlord can seek eviction for a purpose different from tenant's current use (residential versus business)
  3. 3 Whether eviction should have been limited to part of the premises under section 13(4)

Ratio Decidendi

Where the value of the premises exceeds Rs. 10,000/-, the Calcutta High Court has jurisdiction under section 20 and its Schedule, irrespective of the suit value pleaded; a landlord is not barred in law from seeking eviction for residential purpose even if the premises was used by the tenant for business, provided the premises can be put to such use; partial eviction under section 13(4) was not warranted on the facts found.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal is dismissed with costs.