LAKSHMINARAYAN GUIN & ORS. versus NIRANJAN MODAK

LAKSHMINARAYAN GUIN & ORS. versus NIRANJAN MODAK

The Supreme Court held that reference to 'decree' in section 13(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 refers to the decree that finally disposes of the suit, including one made at the appellate stage, and that a change in law must be applied even during the pendency of an appeal. Since the notice served for eviction did not comply with s.13(6), the suit was incompetent and rightly dismissed by the High Court.

Parties
Appellant: Laksminarayan Guin & Ors.; Respondent: Niranjan Modak
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 December 1984
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave Against Calcutta High Court Judgment and Decree
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Retrospective Operation of Tenancy Statutes, Jurisdiction Post Change in Law, Eviction Suits and Appellate Procedure
Tenancy Law Civil Procedure Retrospective Operation of Tenancy Statutes Jurisdiction Post Change in Law Eviction Suits and Appellate Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laksminarayan Guin & Ors.

Appellant

Niranjan Modak

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave Against Calcutta High Court Judgment and Decree

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellate court is bound to apply a change in law (West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956) extended during the pendency of the first appeal.
  2. 2 Interpretation of the word 'decree' in section 13(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that reference to 'decree' in section 13(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 refers to the decree that finally disposes of the suit, including one made at the appellate stage, and that a change in law must be applied even during the pendency of an appeal. Since the notice served for eviction did not comply with s.13(6), the suit was incompetent and rightly dismissed by the High Court.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The decree and judgment of the High Court are affirmed; the appellants' suit for ejectment and arrears of rent is dismissed.