GOPI KRISHNA KANORIA versus DRAUPADI SAHAYA & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 826 · Decided: 23-02-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

826 
GOPI KRISHNA KANORIA 
v. 
DRAUPADI SAHAYA & ORS. 
February 23, 1970 
[J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885, ss. 10, 155 and 178(1)(c)-Bihar Land Re-
.forms Act, 1950--Mokurrari tenure held under registered document prior 
to Act of 1885---0n failure to observe conditions of tenure under the ins-
trument notice given for cancellation of tenure and suit filed }or eject-
nient,,.-Bihar Act of 1950 vesting tenure in State-Whether clai1n of pro-
prietor to full compensation lay when hi~ notice of cancellation of tenure 
did not comply with terms of s. 155 of 1885 Act-Effect of ss. 10 and 
178(1)(c). 
The respondents held from the ·appellant certain land on Mokurrari 
tenure (permanent lease) created under a registered instrument dated 
•October 29, 1885. According to the said document the proprietor was 
<:ompetent to cancel the lease in the event of a default in the payment of 
four successive kists by the tenure holder. 
On the failure of the respon-
dents to pay four successive kists the appellant on June 22, 1953 served 
on them a notice terminating and cancelling the Mokurrari tenure. During 
the pendency of the suit which was filed by the appellant in September 
Il953 it was declared that the Mokurrari tenure became vested in the 
State of Bihar with effect from July 26, 1954 under the provisions of the 
Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. 
The 
plaint was amended and certain 
parties were added. The appellant claimed that he was entitled to the 
·entire compensation which was tO be ·received from the State. The trial 
court held that on account of the failure df the appellant to give a notice 
to the respondents under s. 155 of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 the res-
pondeqts continued to be the tenure holders till the tenure vested in the 
State and therefore the appellant was not entitled to the full compensation. 
The High Court upheld the order of the trial court. In appeal by certifi-
cate the appellant relied on s. 10 of the Act which it was claimed made 
-s. 155 inapplicable, in a case like the present, where the contract was 
made before the Act of 1885. 
HELD : Section 10 simply provides tnat the holder of a permanent 
tenure shall not be ejected except on the ground that he has broken a con-
dition on breach of which he is liable to be ejected under the terms of 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
the contract. Section 178 ( 1 )( c) says categorically that even though the 
contract has been made before the passing of the Act the landlord cannot 
eject a tenant otherwise' than in accordance with its provisions. Section 155 
places a bar against a suit being entertained unless the requirements laid 
down therein have been satisfied. Therefore even though under s. IO 
G 
the appellant became entitled to eject the respondents on account of the 
breach of the condition relating to payment of rent the condition prece· 
dent for a suit being entertained by a court was the notice served in the 
prescribed manner speci'fying the breach 
v.rhich was capable of remedy 
and in which the tenant should have been required to remedy the same 
or in any case to pay ·reasonable compensation for the breach. 
If the 
tenant had failed to comply within a reasonable time with that request then 
alone the suit was maintainable. 
Even if under the proviso to .s. 10 the 
H 
contract which was entered into before the 
commencement of the Act 
could contain conditions which \Vere inconsistent with the provisions of 
the Act that did not dispense with the requirements of s. 155 of the Act 
,,
G. K. KANORIA v. D. SAHAYA (Grover, J.) 
827 
A 
which had to be satisfied before any suit could be entertained. 
As the 
notice which had been served by the appellant did not comply with the 
provisions of s. 155 the courts below rightly negatived his claim to the 
entire compensation nioru:y. (829 C-G] 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 31 
of 
1967. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated November 27, 
1961 of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No. 
459 of 1956. 
B. Sen and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellant 
c 
Sarjoo Prasad, U. S. Prasad, Santok Singh and U. P. Singh, 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
for respondent No. 1. 
U. P. Singh, for respondent No. 11. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Grover, J. 
This is an appeal by certificate against a judg· 
ment of the Patna High Court in a suit instituted by the appellant 
for arrears of Mokurrari rent and cess with interest for four kists · 
and fo

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