LexGANGA DUTT MURARKA versus KARTIK CHANDRA DAS AND OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
3 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT HEPORTS 813 the amount of Rs. 3,20,000/- must have been divided. '96' In that view of the case, the decree passed by the Kashuiaths• High Court will be modified as follows: - Yamosa Kabadi The properties of the joint family except the pro- v. perties divided on September 23, 1946, October 12, Narsings• . 1946, October 19, 1946, including the amount of Bhask•rs• K•b•d• Rs. 3,20,000/-, October 20, 1946, October 21, 1946, Shah J. including the stock-in-trade, silks and sarees and cup- boards, and on November 10, 1946, February 7, 1947, February 22, 194 7, February 24, 194 7, February 25, 1947, and the furniture, utensils and other movables between May and June, 1947, and the property divided on July 13, 194 7, and the outstandings divided be- tween February 5, 1948, and February 9, Hl48, shall be partitiuned between the parties. The partition will be made on the footing that defendant No. 3 is entitled to a half share and defendant No. l, the plainWfs collectively and defenda.nt No. 2 are each entitled to a 1/6 share. Defendant No. l will be entitled to his costs in Appeals Nos. 218 of 1959 and 219 of 1959. The other appeals filed by the plaintiffs and defendant No. 3 will be dismissed. One hearing fee. 0. As. Nos. 218 and 219 of 1959 allowed. 0. As. Nos. 220 to 223 of 1959 dismissed. GANGA DUTT MURARKA v. KARTIK CHANDRA DAS AND OTHERS. (J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH and J.C. SHAH, JJ.) Tenant, Eviction of-Determination of lease by efflux of time-Tenant continuing in possession on payment of rent fixed bi'. rent control Acts-Landlord accepting the same-Nelli tenartey, if created-Transfer of Property Act, z882 (4 of z882), ss. zo6, IC6. The appellant was a contractual tenant of certain premises in the town of Calcutta of which the respondents were the owners. The respondents called upon the appellant to vacate and deliver possession of the premises on the expiration of the perioJ of tenancy but possession was not delivered and the respondents were unable to obtain possession in view of the protection afforded to the tenants by the successive rent control Acts passed by the State. In the meantime the x96z February zo. I ' \:. 814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [1961] '•. r!i6r • .. ·appellant continued to pay every month. amo,;nts equal to the - ' . contractual rent, and later the rent declared to be the statutory ~GaniaDull rt!nt and the ·respondent' acCepted. the same .. The· _question · Mu,-arAa· arising for decision \Vas whether· the-·acceptance of the amounts · v. by the respondents conferred upon the appellant the right of a •. Karlik .• tenant holding over within the meaning of s. n6 of the Transfer ClaaNdr0 Das . of ~~operty Act. ,t , • 1. . . Held, that where a contractual tenancy to which.the rent . ; control legislation applied, had expired by efflux of time. _or by .'determination by notice to quit and th~, tenant continued 'in · possession of .the premises, acceptance of rent from the tenant by . -· . '. the landlord. after the. expiration' or determination of the con- ' tractual 'tenancy will not' afford ground for holding that the .. landlord had assented to a new contractual tenancy. . . · · Kai' Khushroo v. Bai ]erbai [r949] F.C.R. 262, followed .... / ._.: :• . Acceptance by the landlord from the. tenant of amounts 1 : · equivalent. to rent after the contractual tenancy had expired or 'amountswhich were fixed ·as standard rent did not amount to acceptance of rent from a lessee within the meaning ·of s. n6 of · -. the. Transfer ·of Property Act. · · ! · :· ·.· Occupation of• the 'appellant· after the· determination of . tenancy was not in pursuance of any contract express or implied . buL:was by virtue .. of protection granted. by the successive . , statutes and such ·occupation was not required to be determined · in themanner prescribed by s. 106 of. the Transfer of Property -"-A.Ct~"·· '; . ·. ·~ 1 • • · ;, ·'· ,- - .. ,.•: , ... "J. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil. Appeal No. 82 of 1957. .. · .· . "Appe'.11 fro~ ; the judgment and'. decree dated April 4, 1955, ?.f t~e. Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 1224 of 1953. G. S. Pathak flond D. N. ,Jf ukherjee, for the appellant. H. N. · Sanyal,. Additional "Solicitor-General of India and P. K. Chatterjee, for the respondents. ·: . , · , 1961. February IO .. The· Judgment of the· Court was_delivered by .. .
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.