LexGOPI KANTA SEN versus ABDUL GAFFUR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
170 GOPI KANTA SEN A v. ABDUL GAJi'FUR & ORS. August II. 1967 [K. N. WANCHOO, C. J., V. BHARGAVA AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] B Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act 1949, as amended by Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act 1953-S. 3 of the Act whether applicable to pre-Act "uits-Deletion of ss. 28 and 29 of o•iginal Act by 1953 amendment- .Effect of deletion on jurisdiction of civil cow-ts. In June 1948 the appellant insbituted a suit against the firs_t res- :pondent and others for their ejectme!lt from the property in suit On C ~ebruary 28 1949 the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act came into force. The first resi>ondent was not a thika tenant within the definition there- <>f given in the Act. The suit was decreed by the Munsif in March 1949 In November 1949 the appeal filed by the first respondent was dismissed by the first appellate court. He then filed a second appeal 1in the High Court which was heard. in 1954. Before that the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Amendm.ont) Act, 1953 was passed. Under this Act the first respondent came within the definition of thika D tenant. The High Court remanded the case to the Subordinate Judge for trying the case in the llght of the amended Act. The Subordinate Judge held that the first respondent was a thika tenant and could not be ejected as none of the grounds mentioned in s. 3 of the Act had been established by the appellant. The latter appealed to the High Court and urged that w;th the omission of s. 29 in the 1953 Act Civil Courts became, unable to remit ejectment suits to the Rent Con- troller with the result that the Act as amended could not apply to E pre-Act suits. The High Court however took the view that after the -omission of ss. 28 and 29 from the Act suits for eviction before civil courts became infructuous and, accordingly. dismissed the appeal. 'The appellant w.ith certificate came to this Court. The questions that fell for. consideration were: (i) whether the tenant could take the benefit of s. 3 in a pre-Act suit, (ii) whether in view of the omis- sion of ss. 28 and 29 from the Act the civil! courts had jurisdiction to try such a suit. F HELD: Per Wanchoo C.J. & Mitt-er J. (i) While lt is a genr.ral principle of lav.~ that statutes are not to operate retrospectively so as to defeat vested interests; such operation may be given by express enactment or by necessary implication from the language employed. The language of s. 3 leaves no room for doubt that it is retrospective since it expressly states that notwithstanding anything contained :.n any other law for the time being in force or in any contract, a thika G ·tenant will be liable to eiectment on grounds specified therein and not otherwise. [179 D-E: 180 F-G]. Knight v. Lee, [1893] 1 Q.B. 41 and Beadling v. Goll, 39 Times Law Reporter 31, referred to. Section 3 does not purport to lay down that the'grounds mention- ed therein have got to be stated in the notice of ejectment. All that B the section lays down is that ejectment could not be had unless the -existence of one of the iirounds was proved. Such proof could have been adduced at the trial even if no mention of the grounds had been made before. The appellant not having given such proof the case was rightly decided aga;nst him. [183 C-D]. GOPI KANTA V. ABDUL GAFPUR (Miller, J.) 171 A (ii) However ln a pre-Act suit no notice under s. 4 could be in- sisted on as that section was clearly prospective. Section 5 which re- quired proceedings to be filed before the Controller was also clea~lw prospective. (180 H; 181 A; B-H]. (iii) The High Court was wrong ;n holding that suits for the evic- tion of th.ik11 tenants became infructuous before civll courts after the omission of ss. 28 and 29. There being no longer any provision for B transfer of pending suits and appeals, the court hearing the appeal would have to pass a decree for ejectment even if the defendant was a thika tenant after taking into account s. 3. (183 D-F]. c Per Bhargava, J .-Th'.s appeal must be dismissed because the res- pondent was entitled to the benefit of s. 3, It was not necessary to express any opinion whether ·compliance with s. 4 \\'as also requlred or whether it being prospecitve only no such compliance by the appel- lant was needed,- (184 Bl • CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 1964. Civil Appeal No. 787 of Appeal from the judgment and decree dated January 5, 1961 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 1012 of 1955. D A. K. Sen and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.