MRITUNJOY SETT (D) BY LRS. versus JADUNATH BASAK (D) BY LRS

MRITUNJOY SETT (D) BY LRS. versus JADUNATH BASAK (D) BY LRS

Once the tenancy was determined per English calendar month and a clear month's notice was given as required by Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and the respondent's admission in earlier proceedings confirmed this, the suit for eviction was maintainable. The High Court's interference in second appeal was unwarranted as no substantial question of law existed.

Parties
Appellant: Mritunjoy Sett (D) by LRS.; Respondent: Jadunath Basak (D) by LRS.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Following High Court Second Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Bona Fide Requirement, Notice Validity, Admissions in Evidence, Second Appeal Scope
Landlord Tenant Civil Procedure Eviction Bona Fide Requirement Notice Validity Admissions in Evidence Second Appeal Scope

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mritunjoy Sett (D) by LRS.

Appellant

Jadunath Basak (D) by LRS.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Following High Court Second Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the eviction notice served under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 was valid and in accordance with law
  2. 2 Whether the tenancy was governed by the English or Bengali calendar month
  3. 3 Evidentiary value of admissions versus documentary rent receipts

Ratio Decidendi

Once the tenancy was determined per English calendar month and a clear month's notice was given as required by Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and the respondent's admission in earlier proceedings confirmed this, the suit for eviction was maintainable. The High Court's interference in second appeal was unwarranted as no substantial question of law existed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and decree of Single Judge of High Court set aside
  • Judgment and decree of lower appellate court restored