NALINAKHYA BYSACK versus SHYAM SUNDER HALDAR AND OTHERS

Citation: [1953] 1 S.C.R. 533 · Decided: 29-01-1953 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
' ,. --
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
533 
who is treated as agent under section 43 may not fall 
19S3 
within any of the several categories of income, profits 
T 
· 
f 
d 
· 
' 
4" 
Th 
1 
urnar 
or gams re erre 
to m section 
:6. 
e anguage Mm·rison ct co., 
of section 43 will also attract the provisions of 
Ltd. 
section 40, for that section also 
contemplates a 
v. 
person who is entitled to receive on behalf of the Commissioner 01 
non-resident any income, profits and gains charge-
l~~cotnBie-tao:,t 
b 
d 
. 
d 
h 
. 
'es 
enga • 
a le un er this Act an may even attract t e provi-
· 
sions of section 4(l)(a). In our opinion there is no 
Das J. 
warrant for the contention that an appointment of a 
person as a statutory agent under section 43 only 
attracts section 42 for such appointment is for all 
purposes of the Act and not only for the purposes of 
section 42. 
In our judgment, for reasons stated above, the 
answers given to the questions by the High Court, 
in so far as they relate to the assessment of income-
tax with which alone we are now concerned, are 
correct and this appeal must be dismissed with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
Agent for the appellant: P. K. Mukherii. 
Agent for the respondent: G. H. Raiadhyaksha. 
N ALINAKHYA BY SA OK 
v. 
SHYAM SUNDER HALDAR AND OTHERS. 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, DAS, and BHAGWATI JJ.] 
West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) 
Act (XVII of 1950), s. 18 (I)- T-Vhether applies to orders for re-
covery of possession made by Presidency Small Cause Court-" Decree 
for recovery of possession "-Construction of stat1ites-Mistakes of 
legislature. 
The expression "decree for recovery of possession" in· s. 18 
(1) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provi-
sions) Act (Act XVII of 1950) does not include an order for re-
covery of possession made under s. 43 of the Presidency Small 
Cause Courts Act, 1882, and a person against whom an order fo1· 
1959 
Jan. 29. 
1953 
Nalinakhya 
Bysaclc 
v. 
Shyam Sunder 
Haldar. 
and Others. 
534 
SUPR:E:ME dOURT REPORTS 
(1953] 
recovery of possession has been passed under s. 43 of the Presid-
ency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, is not therefore entitled to 
claim relief under the provisions of s. 18 (1) of Act XVII of 1950. 
•Bai Bahadiir Atiilya Dhan Banerjee v. Siidhangsu Bhiisan 
Dutta([l951] 55 0.W.N. 343), Dhanesh Prakash Pal v. Lalit Mohan 
Ghosh ([1951] 55 O.W.N. 347), Mohan Lal Khettry v. Ohuni Lal 
Khettry ([1951] 55 O.W.N. 421) Jethmull Sethia v. Aloke Ganguly 
([1951] 55 O.W.N. 563), Iswari Prasad Goenka v. N. R. Sen ([1951] 
55 O.W.N. 719) overruled. 
In construing a statute it is not com:Petent to any court' to 
proceed upon the assumption that the Legislature has made 
a mistake and even if there is some de:fect in. the phraseology 
used by the 
Legisla~ure, the Court cannot aid the defective 
Phrasing of an Act or add and amend, or by construction, make up 
deficiencies which are left in the Act. 
Oom1nissioner for Special Purposes of Income Tax v. Pemsel 
([1891] A.O. 531); Crawford v. Spooner ([1846-51] 4 l\LI.A. 179) and 
Hansraj Gupta v. Official Liqi<idator of Dehra D"n Mi<ssourie 
Electric Tramway Go. Ltd. ([1933] 60 I.A. 13) referred to. 
CrvIL APPELLATE JuRISDIOTION: 
Civil Appeal 
No. 96 of 1952. Appeal from the Judgment and Order 
dated the 9th April, 1951, of the High Court of Judi-
cature at Calcutta (Sen and Chunder JJ.) in Civil 
Rule No. 1038of1950 arising out of the Order dated 
the 4th July, 1950, of the Court of the 6th Judge, 
Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta, in Eject-
ment Suit No. 6571 of 1949. 
Arun Kumar Dutta and Shivdas Ghosh for the 
appellant. 
-. 
Panchanan Ghose (S. P. Ghose, with him) for the 
respondent. 
1053. January 29. The .Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
. 
, DAS J.-This appeal is directed against the judg-
ment and order of a Bench of the Calcutta High Uourt 
passed on the 9th April, 1951, iu Civil Rule No.1038 
of 1950. The facts leading up to this appeal may be 
shortly stated as follows : 
The respondents were, according to the appellant, 
monthly tenants under the appellant in respect of 
three rooms, one kitchen, one privy and a bathroom 
on the groundfioor of premises No. 6, Roy Began 
• 
. -
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
535 
Street, Calcutta, at a monthly rent of Rs. '35 payable 
according to the Bengali calendar month. 
On the 
29th Baisakh 1356 B. S. the appellant gave notice to 
the respondents to quit the premises on or before the 
7th 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.