JATINDRA KUMAR DASS Vs. DHIRAJLAL VRAJLAL KANAKIA
LAWS(CAL)-1974-8-1
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on August 30,1974

JATINDRA KUMAR DASS Appellant
VERSUS
DHIRAJLAL VRAJLAL KANAKIA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

LUKMIDAS KHIMJI V. PURSHOTAM HARIDAS [REFERRED TO]
A K GUPTA AND SONS LIMITED VS. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
NEOGI GHOSE AND CO VS. SARDAR NEHAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SRI NITAI GOUR RADHESHYAM VS. HAREKRISHNA ADHIKARI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

TURNER MORRISON LTD VS. CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE ASSOCIATION [LAWS(CAL)-2005-2-72] [REFERRED TO]
SAIFUDDIN SALEBHAI BOHARI VS. SADASHIV RAMCHANDRA KULKARNI [LAWS(BOM)-1988-7-83] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL DATTARYA CHAPAHLKAR VS. GOVIND YESHWANT BORKAR [LAWS(BOM)-1997-2-83] [REFERRED TO) (PARA 4). 2.]
STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD VS. STAR ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES [LAWS(APH)-2013-10-101] [REFERRED TO]
NAVROJEE AND COMPANY VS. MAGNOLIA SODA FOUNTAIN P. LTD. [LAWS(CAL)-2007-10-60] [REFERRED TO]
MRS. G.A. PETERS VS. NAGENDRA NATH DATTA [LAWS(CAL)-1979-8-30] [REFERRED TO]
K.P.ASOKUMAR VS. M/S. SHIKSHA ASSOCIATES [LAWS(KAR)-2021-10-2] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Dipak Kumar Sen, J. - (1.)The undisputed facts in this case are that the plaintiff is the owner of the premises No. 9, Pollock Street, Calcutta, consisting inter alia, of an one-storied godown and that one P. Vrajlal Dulabhdas and Co. a registered partnership firm (hereinafter referred to as the firm) is the tenant of the said go-down under the plaintiff at a monthly rent of Rs. 220/- per month payable according to the English calendar. It is also not disputed that the firm has not paid any rent to the plaintiff after April, 1970.
(2.)The plaintiff filed this suit on the 25th August, 1972, against one Dhiru-bhai Binani alleging that the latter was carrying on business under the name and style of P. Vrajlal Dulabhdas and Co., i.e., the firm, for arrears of rent from 1st May, 1970. till 29th February. 1972, claiming a decree for Rs. 4,840/-, interest on judgment and costs.
(3.)A written statement in the suit was filed by Dhirajlal Vrajlal Kanakia, the defendant where it was alleged that the name of the defendant was not correctly recorded in the cause title of the plaint. It was further alleged the said firm was a registered partnership and the defendant was one of the partners. It was denied that the defendant was the tenant as alleged. It was further alleged that under a verbal agreement of tenancy between the plaintiff and the firm, the plaintiff was bound to keep the said go-down wind and water-tight and do all necessary repairs thereto and that the firm was entitled to withhold payment of rent in case of default. It was alleged that the roof of the godown became leaky and goods stored therein were damaged by water leaking through the roof. The firm requested the plaintiff to repair the same and the plaintiff having failed to comply with the request, payment of rent was withheld. It was alleged that neither the sum claimed nor any other money was due from the defendant and the suit was bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties, and not maintainable In law.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.