Thika Tenancy IV

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray

Nemai Chandra Kumar v. Mani Square Limited, 2015 (2) SCALE 657 concluded, Nemai Chandra Kumar & Ors. were “Thika Tenants” within the meaning of Section 2(5) of The Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949. It was held, “Any Structure” includes both ‘Kutcha’ (temporary) or ‘Pucca’ (permanent) Structure.

Mani Square Limited’s Review Petition (Civil) No. 1483 of 2015 succeeded on 03.03.2021. Thus, Nemai Chandra Kumar v. Mani Square Limited, Civil Appeal No. 2402 of 2015 stood revived.

SC, 27.07.2022 : A long length of arguments has been advanced before us. The suggestion – “Any Structure”, in its plain meaning, ought to be construed as inclusive of ‘Kutcha’ (temporary) or ‘Pucca’ (permanent) Structure – needs to be rejected for a variety of reasons.

Full Bench Decision of Calcutta High Court in Lakshmimoni Das, 1987 2 CHN 148 is affirmed. Structure as put up by Appellants had been a ‘Pucca’ Structure. Appellants were not “Thika Tenants” within the meaning of Section 2(5) of The Act of 1949.

'The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings but also curiosities. These words are not of obligation but of delight. I am not alone in my refusal to believe, law is tedious. For all who escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.