LexDAHIBEN W/O RANCHHODJI JIVANJI AND ORS. ETC. versus VASANJI KEVALBHAI (DEAD) AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A DAIIlBEN W/O RANCHHODJI JIVANJI AND ORS. ETC. v. VASANJI KEVALBHAI (DEAD) AND ORS. ETC. APRIL 7, 1995 B (K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Ac~ 194&-Sections 88(1)(c) and 89(2)(b}-l'rotected tenants under Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939-Residing in areas covered by clause ( c) of section 88 ( 1 )-Status of-Whether they C would continue to enjoy status of protected tenants after the enactment of the Act-Held, No. Section 88(1)(c) as amended by Bombay Act No. 33 of 1952-/nter- pretation of-Act inapplicable to area specified in clause ( c )-Amendment of 1952 deleting that part of clause (c) and substituting a new clause D (c)-Whether amendment would relate back to Act as enacted-Held, yes-Amendment would apply to suit pending when amendment had come into force. Bombay Tenancy Act, 1931}-Sections 7 and 21-Protected tenant--Ter- E mination of tenancy for bonafide need-Tenancy cannot be terminated merely by issuance of notice-Till question of bonafide need is decided in favour of landlord, tenancy cannot come to an end-Rights of Protected tenant-Not saved by Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948-Benefit of statutory extension u/s 23-Not available. \ , F Interpretation of Statutes--Retrospectivity of amendment-Beneficial } - legislation-Liberal interpretation. The land in question was leased to the ancestors of the respondents form 1894 to 1945. Thereafter, the predecessor-In interest of the appellant executed a registered lease in favour of the respondents on 12.1.1942 for G five years. The lease was to expire on 11-1-1947. The Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939 having come into force in the meantime, the respondents became protected tenants and because of the insertion of Section 23 in that Act subsequently, the duration of the lease got statutorily extended for 10 years, i.e. till 11.1,1952. The land was purchased by the appellants on H 4.8.1947. 234 ) -~ ' DAH!BENv. VASANJIKEVALBHAI 235 Appellants filed a suit on 25-4-1949 for possession of the land under A the occupation of the defendants. The suit was filed after the plaintiffs had issued a notice to respondents on 19-10-1947 u/s 7 of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939 terminating the tenancy and claiming that the land was required for personal cultivation. Possession was demanded by the notice on the expiry on 31-3-1949. In the mean time the Bombay Tenancy and Agricul- B tural Lands Act, 1948 came into force and section 88(1)(c) thereof stated that the Act would not apply to any area within the limits, inter alia, of the municipal boroughs named in the clause. The suit land being admittedly situate within this periphery the Act did not apply, when enacted, to the area in question. The respondents claimed that they being protected tenants and section 89 (2) (b) of lite 1948 Act having·saved this right, the C suit for eviction did not lie. They pleaded that despite wh_at had been provided in section 88 (l)(c) of the Act, they continued to be protected tenants and that because of what was held in Mohanlal Chuni!al Kothari v. Tribhovan Haribhai Tambo!i, [1963) 2 SCR 707 and Hiralal Prabhubhai v. Nagindas Atmaram Kothari, [1964) 6 SCR 773, the provisions of the 1948 D Act, as enacted had to apply to the facts of this case. They relied on the decision in Ishverlal Thakorelal Almaula v. Motibhai Nagjibhai Bhai, [1966) 1 SCR367. However an amendment was made by Bombay Act 33 of 1952 which substituted a new clause (c) deleting that part of earlier clause (c). which E made the Act inapplicable to specified area. The appellant urged that as in the present case the tenancy had been determined w.e.f. 31-4-1949, amendment brought in 1952 would not ensure to the benefit of the respondents. The respondents alleged that even if their rights were to be determined as per the 1939 Act, the mere fact of issuance of notice of termination was not enough to bring to an end the jural relationship existing between the parties and that by force of section 23, as inserted in the 1939 Act, the period of tenancy of the respondents got extended upto 11-1-1952 as the written lease was executed on 12.1.1942. The appellants then contended that the ratio of Mohan Lal's case was inapplicable to the facts of the present case. Dismissing the appeal, this Court F G HELD : 1. The defendant's case that despite what had been provided H 236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 3 S.C.R. A In section 88 (1) (c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.