LexCHIRANJI LAL KHAITAN & ORS. versus MOTI LAL SARAOGI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
22 CHIRANJI LAL KHAITAN & ORS. \'. MOTi LAL SARAOGI August 4, 1971 [K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.) Bihar & West Bengal (Transferred Territories) Act. 1956-Wesl !8,ngal Transferred Territories (Assimilation of Laws) Act, 1958- West Bengel Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949-Suit for eject111e111 ·of' tenant filed in Bihar lerritory after notice under s. 106 of TP. Act- Suit decreed-Appeal pending in Patna High Court-Territory trans- ferred to West Bengal-Appeal transferred to Calcutta High Court -Suit whether liable to he dismissed for want of six months' notice .under s. 9(1J(h)(iii) of 1949 Act-Section whether made applicable hr s. 88 of that Act-Effect of s.3(2) of 1958 Act-No compensation for .superstructures payable when tenancy not terminated under s. 9(I)(b)(iiil. The plaintiff (predecessor-in-interest of the appellants) leased a plot of land then situate in Bihar State to the defendant by oral lease in 1943. In 1947 without the plaintiff's knowledge the defendant built certain superstructures on the land. In 1948 the plaintiff asked him to remove the structures. On his failure to do so the plaintiff in 'September, 1948 gave him a notice to quit under s.106 of the Transfer of Property Act Thereafter he filed a suit which was decreed by the trial court in 1952. The first appellate court affirmed the decree. The .defendant's second appeal was pending in the Patna High Court when the area in question was transferred to West Bengal. Under the provisions of the Bihar & West Bengal (Transferred Territories) Act. 1956 the said appeal was transferred to the Calcutta High Court In 1958 the West Bengal Legislature enacted the West Bengal Transferred Territories (Assimilation of Laws) Act, 1958. The Calcutta High Court in 1965 set aside the decree and dismissed the plaintiff's suit because six months' notice as required under s.9(1 )(b}(iii) of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 had not been given. According to the High Court s.9 was made applicable by s.88 of the Act which was in wide terms. With certificate appeal against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court was filed in this Court. Allow- ing the appeal, HELD : (i) The provisions of the 1949 Act did not apply to the A B c D £ ·'transferred terrirories' on their own force. They were extended to G these territories under the provisions of 1958 Act. Section 3 of that Act while repealing the laws that were in force in the 'transferred terri- tory' and extending the laws that were no force in the rest of West Bengal saved the previous operation of the existing laws so repe~led and further saved anything done or suffered under those laws. [28C-E] In other words because of cl.(a) of the proviso to s.3(2) acts duly done under the repealed Jaws are protected. The quit notice given ·under 5.106 of the Transfer of Property Act by the plaintiff was an act •duly done under a repealed law and was therefore protected. Its H • • CHIRANJI LAL KHAITAN v. MOT! LAL SARAOGI (Hegde, J.) 33 A validity could not be tested 011 the basis of the provision of the 1949 Act. Tkis interpretation advances public interest because otherwise all ejectment suits which had been instituted before the transfer of territories had been effected would automatically fail for non-compli- ance of s.9 of the 1949 Act, a law which was not in force in the trans- ferred territory before their transfer. The legislature would not have H intended such a result. [28E-G] (ii) The liability to pay reasonable compensation for the structures rut up by the tenant arises under the proviso to cl.(iii) of s,9(l)(b). That proviso imposes the liability to pay reasonable compensation for the structures put' up only when the termination of the tenancy is made under cl.(iii) of s.9(1)(b) and not otherwise. As the termination of the tenancy in the present case was not made under that provision the C question of paying compensation did not arise, [28H-29B] C1v1L APPELLAfE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1973 of 1966. Appeal from the Judgment and decree dated August 30, 1965 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Appel- D late Decree No. 1033 of 1956. V. S. Desai, Krishna Sen and B. P Maheshwari, for the appellants. D. N. Mukherjee and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for respondent E No. l(a). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde,J.--This appeal by certificate arisesfromthedeci- sion of the Calcutta High Court in its appellate decre
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.