B. BANERJEE versus ANITA PAN

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 774 · Decided: 20-11-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

774 
B. BANERJEE 
v. 
ANITA PAN 
November 20, 1974 
[M. H. BEG, V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ;] 
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 as amended in 1969-S. 13(1) (/) 
.and (IJ)-Constitutiona/ validity of-Whether offends Art. 19(1)(/) and (5). 
Section 13(1)(f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 195~ (.Act Xll 
<lf 1956). enacted that no order or decree for the recovel1'....of possession of any 
premises sha!L be made by any court in favour of the. landlord against the ten~nts 
~xcept among others, on the ground that th~ ~rem1ses are. rc;asonably reqm~ed 
by the landlord either. for the purpose of building. or rebuilding . or ~or m.aking 
thereto substantial additions. or alterattons or for his own occupatton 1f he 1s the 
owner or for the occupation of any person for wh«;>se benefit the premises are 
held. 
• Section 13 (4) of the Act provides that where a landlord requires the premises 
on any of the grounds mentioned in cl. (1 )( f) and the Court is of opinion that 
such requirement may be substantially salkfied by ejecting the tenant from 
a part only of the premises the Court shall J?1IS'S a decree accordingly. . In 1969 
the Act was amended by West Bengal PreJ111Ses Tenancy (Second Amendm1mt) 
.Act. Section 13 of the original Act was amended by introducing sub-section 
(3A) in it. This sub-section prohibits institution of a suit for ejectment c•f a 
tenant by a landlord who has purchased the premises for his own use within 
three years of the purchase. The Amending Act also enacted that the said Act 
shall apply to suits and appeals, which are pending at the date of the commence· 
ment of the Act. 
The respondent purchased the suit premises in which the appellant was a 
tenant and instituted a suit for ejectment of the tenant under s.13(1)(f) of the 
.original Act. The suit was decreed by the lower court and affirmed by the lower 
appellaJe court. A single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal. When 
the Letters Patent Appeal was pending before the High Court, the- Amending Act 
·Of 1969 was passed, whereupon, the tenant-appellant invoked the provisions of 
the new sub-sec. (3A) and contended that since the landlord had instituted a 
suit the ejcctment within three years of the purchase, the suit should be dis-
missed. 
The High Court held that s.3A was valid prospectively but that the 
restriction imPOsed by the sub-section, giving it retrospective effect, was violative 
of Art. 19 ( 1 )( f) of the Constitution. 
Per Beg and Krishna Iyer, JJ: 
Allowing the appeals and remitting the case to the High Court, 
HELD: 
(l)(a) There is no violation 9f Art. 19(1)(f) read with Art. 
19(5) of the. Con~titution in .the Amending Act, and s.13 of the original .Act, 
as amended 1s valid. The evil corrected by the Amendment Act is to stop 1he 
infiu,x of a transferee class of. evictors of tenants and. institution of litiption 
1o e1ect and rack-rent or re-budd to make large profits. Apparently the infll)w 
of such suits mµst have been swelling slowly over the years and when the stream 
became a flood the ~egislature rushed with an amending bill. Had it made 1he 
!aw merely pro~pechve. t~ose who had, in numbers, already gone to Court and 
mduced legis!ahve attentton would have escaped the inhibition. 
This would 
defeat the objeot and so the application of the additional ban to DCnding actions 
could not be ca!led unreasonable. There is no foundation for the assumptions 
made by the High Court that there may b., cases of ejcctment instituted prior 
to 19~~ or that a num~r of suits ~nd decrees, perhaps decades old. will unjustly 
be nullified b~ !he prcvions operation of the new ban. Recondite in~tances and 
casual hardships cannot deflect constitutloruiL construction of social legislatio•n, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
U.P. STATE V, PRADIP TANDON (Ray, C.J.) 
775 
if. the main thrust of the statute relates to a real social evil of .dimensions de-
serving to be antidoted by antedated legislative remedy. 
Questions such as 
whether those cases whi:h were filed several years ago should have been carved 
<!lut of the category of transferees hit by the Act, and at what point of time the 
evil assumed proportions were best left to legislative wisdom and not to courts 
commonsense. [788C-D; 787F-G; 783F; 787H] 
In the instant case the two land'ord-respondents had purchased the buildings 
in the early sixties. l!ut while considenng the constitutionality the Court would 
not be moved by such

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.