LAWS(ORI)-1954-4-6

NANAKRAM DAS Vs. NAGARMAL

Decided On April 06, 1954
Nanakram Das Appellant
V/S
NAGARMAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendants' appeal against the concurrent decisions of the two lower Courts decreeing the plaintiff's suit for eviction of the defendants from two houses situated at Rajagangapur and for other consequential reliefs.

(2.) THE plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were their monthly tenants in respect of the two houses, and that the house rent was originally fixed at Rs. 5 -12 -0, but it had been raised to Rs. 10/ - per month, and as the defendants were in arrears of house rent, they were given due notice to quit on or before 1 -9 -47, and that they failed to vacate the house in accordance with the notice. The plaintiffs further claimed damages at Rs. 1 -8 -0, per day for the unlawful occupation of the houses from the date of expiry of the notice.

(3.) THE parties belong to Rajgangpur which was formerly included in the State of Gangpur, a merged area. Admittedly the defendants' predecessors -in -interest had been occupying the disputed houses for more than 20 years. It appears that in both the lower Courts the parties proceeded on the assumption that prior to the merger (1 -1 -1948) the Transfer of Property Act was not in force in Gangpur State and that consequently the provisions of Chap V of that Act would not in terms apply. But the Courts below held that the equitable principle contained in most of the provisions of the Act should be applied inasmuch as they are based on equity, justice and good conscience. There is no doubt about the correctness of the view taken by the lower Courts about applying the equitable principles of the Transfer of Property Act, even though the Act might not have been in force in Gangpur State prior to the merger. There are several authorities to show that even in territories formerly known as 'British India' the equitable principles of the Transfer' of Property Act were applied in respect of leases which commenced prior to the coming into force of the said Act, (vide 'Debendra Nath v. Syama Prosanna'. 11 Cal WN 1124 (A), and the decisions cited therein).