BISWAMBAR ROY versus GIRINDRA KUMAR PAUL

Citation: [1966] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 114 · Decided: 30-03-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

1~4 
BISWAMBAR ROY 1 
v. 
GIRINDRA,",KUMAR P~UL 
March 30, 1966 
[K. N. WANCHOO,.l_ C. SHAH ANDS. M. S!KRI, JJ.] 
A 
B 
The Non·Gl!lricu!tura! Urban Areas-Tenancy Act, Assam Act 12 of 
1955 s. 5(1) (a)-Tenant of Land builtling structures within prescribed 
·ver1.~d-Letting out structures--2-Protectioh. from eviction under sec-
tion whether available to tenant 
of land-Construction whether 
should -be for his own use. 
' 
C 
' 
• 
Certain structures for residential "and business purposes were -
raised by a tenant of land in·the term of Si.Jchar' in Assam. The·land-
Jortl secured a .decree for ejectment against the tenant. During the 
pendency of the appeal the Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy 
Act, Assain Act 12 of 1955 was brdught into force. The tenant claimed 
.L 
protection froin eviction under s. 3 of the Act. The Subordinate Judge 
I 
field that the tenant had acquired under s. 5(l)(a) of the Act the 
right of a permanent tenant since he had constructed within the pres-
D 
1cribed period structure~ for residential or business purposes. He ac-
cordingly dismissed the suit. The High Court in further appeal held 
that the protection under s. 5(1)(a) was not available to the tenant 
since' he had let out to tenants th<> buildings constructed on the land. 
The tenant, by special leave, appealed to this Court. · 
HELD: (i) The section me~e'ly requires that the permanent struc-
ture must' be one adapted for iesldential or business purposes. If the 
siru,tur~ i~ not adapated to such \)urposes, the prot"}'tion of's. 5(1)(a') 
'Will not be .available. To read the expr€!>sion ·"permanent structur:e 
on the land o.f the tenancy for residential or business purposes" as 
meaning petmanent structure on the land of the tenancy construc-
~d by the tenant for his own residentjal or busines.s purposes is to 
a\ld words which are not found in the section. [116 HJ. 
(ii) Protection is conferred in terms by s. 5 upon the tenant of 
the land and not upon the tenant of the buildings constructed upon 
the land. By letting out the structures'the'tenant of land does not 
loS<> the protection given by the statute .. [117 CJ., 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
.Civil Appeal No. 891 of 
. 1963. 
. 
F 
Appeal by special leitve from the judgment and decree dated 
June 26, 1959 of the Assam Higli Court in Letter Patent Appeal 
"Nb.- I of 1959. 
. 
G 
·r,~ C. Chatter.jee and D •. N. Mukherjee. for the appellants. 
Sarjqo Prasad and K. P. Gupta, foI' respondents. 
The Jiidgment of the Court was delivered by 
~, 
. 
Shah, 
J. 
Biswambar Roy-predecessor-interest of 
the H 
appellants-was granted on Februarv 20, 1928, a lease for ten 
" 
" 
• 
A 
• 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
BISWAMllAR 
11. 
Gl&INDHA KUMAR 
(8/wh, J.) 
115 
years 1335 B.S. to 1344 B.S. at an annual rental of Rs. 75/- in 
respect of a plot of land, part of Dag No. 3615 in the town of 
Silchar, District Cachar in the State of Assam. Biswambar Roy 
constructed on the land, buildings, some for residential use, and 
others as warehouses. On the expiry of the period of the original 
lease, Biswambar Roy obtained a fresh lease in respect of a part 
of the land for ten years-Baisakh 1345 B.S. to Chaitra 1354 B.S. 
-at an annual rental of Rs. 70 /- under an instrument dated Feb-
ruary 22, 1938. 
The respondents purchased the interest of the landl~ds :in 
the land and instituted on August 3. 1951 an action in the Court 
of the Sadar Munsiff, Silchar against Biswambar Roy for a decree 
for vacant possession of the land. The suit was decreed by the 
Munsiff. Biswambar Roy appealed to the Subordinate Judge, Sil-
char. During the pendency of the appeal, the Non-1gricultural 
Urban Areas Tenancy Act 12 of 1955 enacted by the Assam 
Legislature was brought into force. Biswambar Roy claimed prc-
tection from eviction under s. 3 of Act 12 of 1955. The Subordi-
nate Judge held that Biswambar Roy had acquired under s. 5(1)(a) 
of the Act the rights of a permanent tenant. since he had construct-
ed within the period prescribed permanent structures for residen-
tial or business purposes. He accordingly reversed the decree pass-
ed by the Trial Court and dismissed the suit. Agalnst that decree, 
an appeal was preferred to the High Court of Assam. Deka, .T., 
held that Biswambar Roy could not claim the protection of s. 5(1) 
(a) of the Act, since he hacl let out to tenants the buildings con-
structed on the land. In the view of the learned Judge, by the use 
of the expression "for residential br business purp

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