9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Plaintiffs' appeal for ejectment and arrears of rent dismissed by High Court based on the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 being extended to the property during the pendency of the appeal.
Judgment Summary: 1. The plaintiffs appealed against the High Court's dismissal of their suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. The suit was based on the respondent's refusal to pay rent and the need for demolition of the property for the plaintiffs' business purposes. 2. The trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, but the High Court, after the Act was extended to the property, held that the suit was incompetent due to non-compliance with the Act's provisions, specifically regarding the notice period for eviction. 3. The High Court's decision was based on the interpretation that during the pendency of an appeal, the changed law must be considered and applied, as established in previous legal precedents such as Ram Sarup v. Munshi and Mula v. Godhu. 4. The Court clarified that the protection of the tenant under the Act applies to the final decree, which includes the appellate decree if an appeal is filed, and that the Act's provisions must be followed even if the suit was instituted before the Act came into force. 5. Citing previous cases like Dayawati v. Inderjit and Amarjit Kaur v. Pritam Singh, the Court emphasized that a change in the law during the appeal process must be taken into account, as the appeal is considered a re-hearing of the suit. 6. Ultimately, the Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the appeal based on the Transfer of Property Act must fail due to the application of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, as extended to the property during the appeal. 7. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
