REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

AMAR NATH ROY Appellant

V/S

Anderson Wright And Company Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHRI DR. SUBHASIS NEOGI V/S. W.B. ENGINEERING COMPANY [REFERRED TO]
RESHAM SINGH V/S. RADHBIR SINGH AND ANR [REFERRED TO]
HIRALAL VS. BADKULAL [REFERRED TO]
DULICHAND LAXMINARAYAN VS. COMMR OF INCOME TAX NAGPUR [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN BHAGWANTRAO GOSAVI BALAJIWALE VS. GOPAL VINAYAK GOSAVI [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAWATI VS. HANS RAJ [REFERRED TO]
MADRAS BANGALORE TRANSPORT CO WEST VS. INDER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SHALIMAR TAR PRODUCTS LIMITED VS. H C SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
RAJBIR KAUR VS. S CHOKESIRI AND CO [REFERRED TO]
SHAH PHOOLCHAND LALCHAND VS. PARVATHI BAI [REFERRED TO]
SHANTILAL RAMPURIA VS. VEGA TRADING CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
DELHI STATIONERS AND PRINTERS VS. RAJENDRA KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
RAM SARAN VS. PYARE LAL [REFERRED TO]
BISWANATH PODDAR VS. ARCHANA PODDAR [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is in respect of the Appellant's suit for eviction filed in the court below on the ground of illegal and unauthorised sub -letting which has failed there.

(2.) The facts of the case are really quite brief. The lease in favour of the Respondent -firm was initially for a period of 10 years with a one time option of renewal. The lease itself expired nearly half a century ago but the property in question was held over as a monthly tenant by the firm. The partners were originally all from England and Scotland but at the material time the partners were only some Kedias.

(3.) The whole house, a very valuable one, situated nearly the High Court premises was however partitioned into two halves and the suit is with regard to one half of the whole house only. Even that would cover nearly 6,000 sq. ft. of floor area and half the rent as per Deed of Lease would be 800 or 900 rupees per month only.

Click here to view full judgment.

AMAR NATH ROY Vs. ANDERSON WRIGHT AND COMPANY

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address