Krity Basu Vs Peary Mohan Sarkar and Another

Calcutta High Court 6 Aug 1969 Appeal from Original Decree No. 228 of 1965 (1969) 08 CAL CK 0032
Bench: Division Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Appeal from Original Decree No. 228 of 1965

Hon'ble Bench

P.N. Mookerjee, Acting C.J.; Amiya Kumar Mookerji, J

Advocates

N.K. Bhowmick, for the Appellant;M.C. Banerji and K.K. Sen, for the Respondent

Final Decision

Allowed

Acts Referred
  • West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 - Section 17(1), 17(2), 17(3)

Judgement Text

Translate:

P.N. Mookerjee, A.C.J.

1. This appeal is by the tenant and it arises out of a suit for ejectment. The suit has been decreed by the learned trial judge after striking out the tenant''s defence u/s 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. It appears, however, that the instant case is one, which will be governed by the old section 17(2), i.e. before its amendment in 1959. Under the law, as it then stood, as interpreted by this Court in (1) Biswanath Roy v. Annapurna Roy, 65, CWN 149, it was the duty of the court under the said sec. 17(2), to determine the amount, payable by the tenant-defendant u/s 17(1) and fix a reasonable time for its deposit under the said section (Sec. 17(2)) before proceeding to take up the matter u/s 17(3) of the above Act. In the instant case, there is no question that such a dispute was raised in the defendant''s written statement before the application u/s 17(3) actually came to be considered by the court below. The court below, however, did not consider the matter u/s 17(2) of the above, Act and did not pass any order thereunder. In that situation, its order, striking out the defence u/s 17(3) of the above Act, was illegal and without jurisdiction, vide (1) Biswanath Roy v. Annapurna Roy, 65 CWN 149, and, accordingly, the said order cannot stand and it must be set aside, with the result that the decree for ejectment, following upon the same, would also fall to the ground.

2. In the above view, we would allow this appeal, set aside the decree of the learned trial judge and send the matter back to him for reconsidering the same u/s 17(2) of the above Act and for passing appropriate orders thereunder and, thereafter, for taking up the matter u/s 17(3) of the above Act and deciding the same in accordance with law and finally desposing of the suit for giving effect to the legal rights of the parties in the light of its aforesaid decision.

There will be no order for costs in this Court.

Let the record go down to the court below as quickly as possible and let further hearing of the suit be expedited as much as possible.

Amiya Kumar Mookerji, J.

I agree.

From The Blog
Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Read More
Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Read More