http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7
PETITIONER: BEJOY GOPAL MUKHERJI
Vs.
RESPONDENT: PRATUL CHANDRA GHOSE.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/01/1953
BENCH: DAS, SUDHI RANJAN BENCH: DAS, SUDHI RANJAN MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.
CITATION: 1953 AIR 153 1953 SCR 930 CITATOR INFO : R 1966 SC 629 (9) R 1972 SC 410 (17) R 1988 SC1531 (63)
ACT: Landlord and tenant -Permanent tenancy--Evidence-lnference from possession from generation to generation, transfers, erection of stractures and other circumstances -Mere increase of, rent, effect of.
HEADNOTE: Permanency of tenure does not necessarily imply both fixity of rent and fixity of occupation and the fact of enhancement of rent does not necessarily militate against the tenancy being a permanent one. When, therefore, in a previous suit the only question was whether the jama could be increased and the jama was increased: Held, that this decision did not operate as res judicata on the question of permanency of the tenure in a subsequent suit for ejectment. Shankar Rao v. Sambhu Wallad (1940) 45 C.W.N. 57; Jogendra Krishna Banerji v. Subashini Dassi (1940) 45 C.W.N. 590, Probhas Chandra Mallick v. Debendra Nath Das (1939) 43 C.W.N.828, relied on. Mere possession for generations at a uniform rent, or construction of permanent structures by itself may not be conclusive proof of a permanent right but the ...