High CourtsDivision Bench(1915) 01 CAL CK 0006

Raja Narendra Lal Khan vs Nobin Behary Bhattacharjya

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 15 January 1915 · Citation: AIR 1915 Cal 758 : 28 Ind. Cas. 133

HON’BLE JUDGES
D. Chatterjee, J · Chapman, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

1 paragraphs · 183 words
1.

The provisions of Clause (c) of Section 169 of the Bengal Tenancy Act are quite clear. They are: "If there remains a balance after these sums have been paid, there shall be paid to the decree-holder therefrom any rent which may have fallen due to him in respect of the tenure or holding between the institution of the suit and the date of the confirmation of the sale." If the amount claimed by the landlord is any part of the arrears between the institution of the suit and the date of the. confirmation of the sale he is clearly entitled to it. It is true that the tenant could under Sub-section 2 dispute the decree-holder''s right to receive any sum on account of rent under Clause (c). But that must be upon the ground of payment or satisfaction in any other way. The Legislature could not have meant to apply the limitation provisions of the Schedule ill, Article 2, to the express provisions of Clause (c) of the section, because the limitation only provides for suits and not applications of this kind.