J.L. Varandani Vs. Smt. Ashalata Mukharjee.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 671 of 1985.
Petitioner: J.L. Varandani
Respondent: Smt. Ashalata Mukharjee.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 671 of 1985.
Judges: A.P. SEN & V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 27, 1987
Appearances:
Dr.Y.S.Chitale, Dr.Meera Agarwal and Mr.R.C.Misra, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr.Shankar Ghosh and Mr.Rathin Das, Advocates for the Respondent.
Head Note:
WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1956:
Section 17(4) – Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958; Section 14(2) Construction of Proviso to Sub-section 4 of Section 17 – Analogous provision in section 14(2) of Delhi Rent Control Act interpreted in a narrow and technical sense – Matter to be heard by a larger Bench of Three Hon’ble Judges.
Cases Reffered:
Jagan Nath v. Ram Kishan Dass & Anr., 1985 (2) SCR 388.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. We heard Dr. Y.S. Chitale, learned counsel for the appellant for quite some time. We do feel that the construction of proviso to sub-sec. 4 of sec. 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 does raise questions of general importance which deserve a hearing by a Bench of three Hon. Judges. We say that particularly for the reason that the analogous provision in sec. 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has been interpreted in Jagan Nath v. Ram Kishan Dass & Anr. 1985 (2) SCR 388 and construed in a narrow and technical sense which, in our opinion, defeats the very purpose and object of the provision.
2. Let the papers be laid before the Hon. Chief Justice for placing the matter before a Larger Bench.
1. We heard Dr. Y.S. Chitale, learned counsel for the appellant for quite some time. We do feel that the construction of proviso to sub-sec. 4 of sec. 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 does raise questions of general importance which deserve a hearing by a Bench of three Hon. Judges. We say that particularly for the reason that the analogous provision in sec. 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has been interpreted in Jagan Nath v. Ram Kishan Dass & Anr. 1985 (2) SCR 388 and construed in a narrow and technical sense which, in our opinion, defeats the very purpose and object of the provision.
2. Let the papers be laid before the Hon. Chief Justice for placing the matter before a Larger Bench.
