..
.A
DEWAJI
v.
GANPATLAL
August 6, 1968
573
>B
[S. M. SIKRI, R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.J
D
'E
F
G
H
Berar Regulation of Agricultur"l Leases Act (24 of 1951), as amend-
ed by Amendment Act of 1953, ss. 16, 16A and 16B-lf applicable to
appellate proceedings.
Letter~ Patent Appeal-Jurisdiction of Bench to reapen interlocutory
order by single Judge.
·
The respondent leased his land to the appellant on yearly lease for
die year 1950-51. As the appellant did not vacate at the end of the year
1he respondent filed a suit for his eviction.
Pending the suit, the Berar
Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951, came into force and the
appellant contended that he continued to he a tenant for the year 1951-52,
that he was a 'protected tenant', and that the civil court had no jurisdic-
non to eject him. The trial court rejected the contentions. The appellant
appealed and while the appeal was pending the Act was amended by the
1953 Act. Sections 16A and 16B of the Act as amended provided, that
whenever any question as to whether a transaction between a landholder
and a person claiming to be bis lessee was a lease, arose in any suit or
proceeding, it should be referred to the revenue officer; that the revenue
officer's decision shall be accepted by the ci";1 court; and that no civil court
shall entertain any suit to obtain a decision on a matter which the revenue
officer was empowered to determine.
The appellant contended in the
appellate court that the determination of the question whether he was
the respondent's tenant was a matter entirely within the jurisdiction of the
revenue courts only. The appellate court held that the 1953-Act did not
affect pending proceedings, that the appellant was not the respondenrs
tenant for the year 1951-52, and dismissed the appeal. In second appeal,
a oingle Judge of the High Court held that in view of the 1953 amend-
ments, it was for the revenue courts to decide whether the appellant was
die respondent's leS&ee for the year 1951-52 and referred the matter to the
revenue courts.
The revenue courts held that the appellant was paying
rent to the respondent for the year 1951-52, and remitted the finding to
the High Court.
Another Single Judge of the Higb Court, before whom
die matter came up for final disposal, accepted the finding and held that
the respondent was not entitled to eject the appellant.
He also rejected
'the respondent's contentions that the 1953 amendments were not applicable
anO that the matter should never have been referred to the revenue courts.
The respondent thereupon appealed under Letters Patent.
The Bench
held that ss. I 6, 16A and 16B of the Act were not intended to affect
pending pr~ings, that the civil court could decide the question whethe.-
tbe appellant was the respondent's tenant, in 1951·52, and allowed the
appeal accepting the findings of the trial court
and the first appellate
court that the appe11ant was not the respondent's
tenant
for the year
1951-52.
In appeal to this Court,
HELD : ( 1) It was open to the Letters Patent Bench to decide all
points decided by the single Judges even though no appeal
was
filed
against the order referring the matter to the revenue courts, as that ordet
574
SUPRE'.'dF. COURT RF.PORTS
[1969] I S.C.R.
was onlv an interlocutorv one to which s.
105(2)
C.P.C.;
wa.<
not
applicable. [578H; 579A-B]
Satyadlzyan Ghosa/ v. Smt. Deorajin Devi.
[I 960]
3
S.C.R.
590,
followed.
(2) The intention of the Legislature was not to anplv the 1953-Act
to pendinq proceedin~s and therefore ~s. 16, 16A and 16B did not bar
the juri~diction of the civi] courts in the present cas~.
B.
The 1953-Act came into force a'(ter the trial court
decreed the suit
and an apocal 'vas pending in the first aoocllatc Court. The word!; 'suit
or proceeding in s. I 6A do not ordinarily indic<1tc .-innella!c proceedings
and there is nothing in ss. 16. I 6A or t 6R which can le:ld to the ncce,i.;ary
inference that these prO\isions were intended to anp•v to appeals pendin~
when the 1953-Act came into force.
Further, the words used in s. 16B
are 'cn'ertain' :incl not 'entenain and trv·.
If the intention was to affect
C
pendinl! p'rocccdin{!'; the \\'Ord 'trv' would have hccn in the section alODJ!
with the word 'entertain'. [578 GE]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICT!OS: Civil Appeal No. 1041 of
1965.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated Aui!Ust 9, 1962
D
of the Bombav High CoExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.
Lexace India is a legal-information & technology platform — not a law firm. It does not advertise, solicit work, or provide legal advice, and no advocate–client relationship is created. Judgment excerpt for general information; verify against the official record.