Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether section 5(1) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, as amended, required execution of an already passed decree for ejectment to be pursued only before the Controller and excluded the jurisdiction of civil courts.
Analysis: Section 5(1) was held to govern original applications by a landlord wishing to eject a thika tenant on the grounds specified in section 3, and not execution of a decree already obtained by a competent civil court. A decree-holder executing an existing decree does not invoke the grounds of ejectment contemplated by section 3, and the procedure in section 5(1) is a self-contained one for original ejectment applications before the Controller. The deletion of the reference to section 28 did not enlarge the Controller's jurisdiction to reopen decrees already passed. Protection for judgment-debtors whose decrees fell within the intermediate period was provided by section 5(2) of the 1952 Ordinance, and failure to invoke that remedy could not be cured by resort to section 5(1) as amended.
Conclusion: Section 5(1) did not divest civil courts of jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition, and the appellant's objection failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A provision empowering a Controller to deal with a landlord's application to eject a thika tenant does not extend, without clear words, to execution of a decree already passed by a civil court.