CHANDRASINGH MANIBHAI AND OTHERS versus SURJIT LAL LADHAMAL CHHABDA

Citation: [1951] 1 S.C.R. 221 · Decided: 23-02-1951 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
221 
CHANDRASINGH MANIBHAI AND OTHERS 
v. 
SURJIT LAL LADHAMAL CHHABDA 
AND OTHERS. 
[PATANJALI SAsTRI, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN and 
MuKHERJEA JJ.] 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control AN 
(LV/l of 1947), ss. 12, Sri-Application of Act to appealr pending 
when Act came into force-Retrospec/ive operation of Act, ertent 
of-Construction of ss, 12 and 50. 
The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control 
Act, LVII of 1947, which came into force on the 13th February, 
1948, has no application to appeals which were pending at the 
time 
when the Act came into force. 
Its retrospective effect is 
limited to cases mentioned in s. 50 of the Act, that is to say to 
suits and proceedings 
which were transferred under the provi· 
sions of the said section to the courts having purisdiction under 
the Act. 
Section 12 of the said Act is in terms prospective and not 
retrospective in effect. 
Sub-section (2) relates to suits which may 
be instituted after the Act comes into force and sub-s. (3) 
also 
only applies to such suits. 
Nilkanth v. Rasiklal (A.I.R. 1949 Born. 210) approved. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JuR1sD1cnoN: 
Appeal 
<Civil 
Appeal No. 57 of 1950) from a judgment and decree 
of the High Court of Judicature at 
Bombay dated 1st 
April, 1948, in Appeal No. 365 of 1947 
reversing a 
judgment of the Joint 
Civil fudge 
at 
Ahmedabad, 
dated 14th October, 1947, in Suit No. 174 of 1945. 
B. 
Somaya 
(lindra Lal, 
with 
him) for 
the 
appellants. 
C. K. Daphtary (Sri Narain Andley, with him) for 
the respondents. 
1951. February 23. 
The judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
MAHAJAN J.-The appellants are owners of a- proper-
ty known as "Bharat Bhuvan Theatre" at Ahmcda-
bad. The respondents are the lessees of the said thea-
tre. 
Th(' term of the lease was to expire on the 2nd 
1951 
Feb. 230 
t95! 
C/ifJwdrasingh 
Manibhai and 
Oth1rs 
v. 
Surjit Lal 
Ladhamal 
Chhabda and 
Otlrtrt. 
Mahajan]. 
222 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1951] 
December, 1945, unless the lessees gave to the land-
lords three months previous notice in writing of their 
intention of exercising their option of renewal of the 
lease for a further period of two years. 
On the 13th 
December, 1945, the appellants filed the suit out of 
which this appeal arises for ejectment of the respond-
ent• and for recovery of certain amounts. This suit was 
decreed on the 14th October, 1947, on 
the 
following 
findings : (1) that the respondents had not exercised the 
option of the renewal of the lease according to the sti-
pulations contained in the lease, (2) that they had com-
mitted breaches of the terms of the lease, and (3) that 
they were not protected 
by the Rent Restriction Act. 
An enquiry was directed into the amount of mesne pro-
fits. 
The respondents filed an appeal in the High 
Court against the decree of the Joint Civil Judge on 
the 10th November, 1947. The appeal was 
heard by 
a Bench of the High Court (Weston and Dixit JJ.) on 
the 26th February, 1948, and was decided on the 
1st 
April, 1948. 
The judgment and decree 
of the Joint 
Civil Judge were reversed and the plaintiff's suit was 
dismissed. The High Court affirmed the finding of the 
trial court on the first point and held in 
agreement 
with it that the respondents had not proved that they 
gave three months previous notice in writing to 
the 
appellants for renewal of the lease as required 
by 
clause 4(2) of the lease. It reversed the finding of the 
trial Judge on the 
point that the 
respondents had 
committed breaches of the terms contained in clause 2 
(20) of the lease. Finally, it reached the conclusion that 
although the decree appeakd from was right on the 
date it was made, yet in view of the altered circumstan-
ces created by reason of coming 'into operation of Act 
L V_II of 1947 the appellants were not entitled to reco-
very of possession of the suit premises. 
Being agg-
rievea by the judgment of the High Court, the appell-
ants obtained a certificate and filed an appeal in this 
court on the 7th March, 1949, and it is now before us 
for decision. 
It was contended before the High Court that the ap-
peal being in the nature of a rehearing, it should be 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
223 
decided in accordance· with· the provisions of Act LVII 
of 1947 which came into force on the 
13th 
February, 
1948, and not. in accordance with the provisions of the 
Act in force at the time when the decree was passed by 
the trial court. In o

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