Spread the love

The Supreme court on friday,17th May,2024 had given its judgment on the case of Bijay kumar Manish kumar versus Ashwin Bhanulal Desai.

This case was about a dispute between the landlord and the tenant over the non- payment of rent and some other dues of a property which was situated there in the state of West Bengal.

The petitioner, who is the landlord of the said property which is there in the Dalhousie area of Kolkata, west Bengal had filed an appeal before the Supreme Court under the Special leave petition which comes under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner had filed this special leave petition before the Apex court to challenge the judgment of the High court of Calcutta which was given on the date of 7th November, 2019. In the judgment, the learned Single judge bench of the High court was discussing regarding the issue that whether the West Bengal tendency Act,1997 or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 were to be applied for framing of the issues in the instant landlord tenant dispute and in the judgment finally it was held that the Tenancy Act would govern the same.

Due to the alleged non- payment of rent, the lease was fortified and as a result the petitioner-applicant had  initiated proceedings for ejectment under the T.P. Act. Suit(s) were filed before the City Civil Court at Calcutta seeking inter alia, a) recovery of possession by eviction of defendant ( respondent) and a permanent injunction against the present respondents and his agents, servants, employees or associates etc., from alienating, transferring or parting with possession of the property. In response to this appeal by the petitioner-landlord, the respondents had filed an application against the plaint to reject this plaint of the petitioner on the grounds of jurisdiction. The respondents in their defense had also said that this plaint which has been filed by the petitioner-applicant is totally bad in law, illegal and arbitrary in nature. The court said in their judgment that with less trials and lack of evidence they cannot say that the points mentioned in the plaint by the petitioner-appellant is wrong. So, the city civil court is rejecting the appeal of the respondent. 

Finally, this dispute went up to the Supreme court under the special leave petition which was filed by the petitioner who is the landlord of the said property. The two judge bench of the Supreme court comprised of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay karol had directed the respondent who are the tenents of the said property to deposit the said amount of Rs. 5,15,05,512 with the registry of this court within four weeks from today and if the respondents will fail to pay the said amount in the registry of this court then they have to face the consequences for the disobedience of the order passed by this court.

CASE NAME-  Bijay kumar Manish kumar versus Ashwin Bhanulal Desai.


Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature


Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *