TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court clarifies 'decree' in Section 18(1) of 1950 Act, excludes possession orders. (1)</h1> <h3>NALINAKHYA BYSACK Versus Shyam Sunder Haldar And Others</h3> NALINAKHYA BYSACK Versus Shyam Sunder Haldar And Others - 1953 AIR 148, 1953 SCR 533 Issues Involved:1. Validity of the eviction order under Chapter VII of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882.2. Applicability of Section 18(1) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950.3. Interpretation of the term 'decree' in Section 18(1) of the 1950 Act.4. Legislative intent and potential casus omissus.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the eviction order under Chapter VII of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882:The appellant initiated eviction proceedings under Chapter VII of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, alleging non-payment of rent for three consecutive months. The respondents deposited the due amount and contested the eviction. The trial court initially ordered the eviction ex parte but later vacated the order upon compliance by the respondents. The appellant contested this vacating order in the High Court, which was dismissed, leading to the present appeal.2. Applicability of Section 18(1) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950:Section 18(1) of the 1950 Act allows tenants to apply for vacating a decree for possession made on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent under the 1948 Act. The key question was whether this section applied to an order for possession made under Section 43 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. The High Court had previously ruled that the term 'decree for recovery of possession' included orders under Chapter VII of the 1882 Act. However, this interpretation was contested.3. Interpretation of the term 'decree' in Section 18(1) of the 1950 Act:The Supreme Court examined whether the term 'decree' in Section 18(1) of the 1950 Act could be extended to include orders for possession under the 1882 Act. The Court concluded that the language of Section 18(1) was clear and unambiguous, referring specifically to decrees made under the 1948 Act. The Court emphasized that 'decree' and 'order' are distinct terms within the 1948 Act, and there was no necessity to extend the meaning of 'decree' to include 'order' for possession under the 1882 Act. The Court also highlighted that the word 'decree' should be interpreted in its ordinary sense, as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.4. Legislative intent and potential casus omissus:The Court addressed arguments suggesting that a strict interpretation of 'decree' would lead to unjust results, depriving tenants of relief intended by the Legislature. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the Legislature's intention was to provide relief only in specific circumstances and not to all tenants indiscriminately. The Court reiterated that it is not the role of the judiciary to correct or amend legislative deficiencies, even in cases of casus omissus (omitted cases).Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and dismissing the respondents' application under Section 18(1) of the 1950 Act. The Court clarified that the term 'decree' in Section 18(1) does not include orders for possession under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs throughout the proceedings.
TaxTMI 