HIRALAL PRABHUBHAI AND OTHERS versus NAGINDAS ATMARAM KHATRI

Citation: [1964] 6 S.C.R. 773 · Decided: 14-02-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

fi S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
773 
HIRALAL PRABHUBHAI AND OTHERS 
V. 
NAGINDAS ATMARAM KHATRI 
IK. SUBBA RAo AND J. R. MUDHOLKAR JJ.) 
Bombay T<nancy Agricultural Lands Act (Bom. LXV/l of 1948), ss. 88 
and 89-Suit for eviction-Agricultural land within two miles of 
the limir.r of Municipalily-Applicubility of Act. 
'fhe respondent gave aotice to the appellants terminating the lease 
of agricultural land situated within two miles of the limits of the 
Municipality and filed a suit for eviction. The suit was contested, 
inter alia, on the ground that under the provisions of the Bombay 
Tenancy Act, 1939, the defendants had acquired tenancy rights. 
The 
civil Judge, inter alia, held ~that the 1939 Act was repealed by the 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948, which did not 
apply to the suit land, as it was within two n1iie~ of the limits of the 
Surat Borough Municipality and decreed the suit. 
On appeal, the 
District Judge held that the 1948 Act applied to the Suit land and set 
aside tpe decree of the trial Court. 
In second appeal by the plaintiff, 
the High Court held that the suit land was within two miles of the 
limit:. of the Municipality and therefore, the 1948 Act did not :.tppJy 
to the suit land. On appeal by Special Leave the appellants contended 
that their rie;hts under the 1939 Act were saved and preserved under 
s. 89(2) of the 1948 Act with the result that the lease extended to 
IO years under the 1939 Act was saved thereunder, and by reason of 
the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment} Act, 1952, 
which brought the suit land within the scope of the 1948 Act, their 
rights so preserved came to be governed by the provisions of rhe 1948 
Act and, therefore, they could not be evicted except in the manner 
prescribed tiy the provisions of the Act. The respondent contended that 
the savin& provi•ion in s. 89(2) of the 1948 Act operates only if there 
is no express provision to the contrary and that the saving of the 
appellant'• right would be otiose, as he could not enforce his right 
under the 1948 Act. 
Held: (i) Before the suit was disposed of, the 1952 Act came into 
force, and by reason of the extension of the 1948 Act to the suit land, 
the respondent could not evict the appellants except in the manner 
prescribed by the 1948 Act. 
(ii) The respondent's contention must be rejected. 
There is an 
express provision found in s. 88(1) of the 1948 Act, in as much as 
it says that the provisions of ss. 1 to 87 will not apply to the area in 
question. 
(iii) As there was a right recognized by law there was a remedy 
and, therefore. in the absence of any special provisions 
indicating a 
l!lfl 
Febrw,., If. 
774 
. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1961 
particular forum for enforcing a particular right the general law of the 
HINlalP bh 
land would naturally take its course. The High Court. therefore, was 
bhai ra 
U• wrong in holding that the appellants could not claim the benefit of the 
"· 
provisions of the 1948 Act. 
NagindtU 
.A.Ima. 
ram. 
Sakharam (a) Bapusaheb Nara)'an Sanos v. Manikchand Morichand 
Shah [1962] 2 S.C.R. S9, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
120/62. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree 
dated April 23, 1959, of the former Bombay High Court 
in Second Appeal No. 1359 of 1955. 
M. S. K. Sastri and M. S. Narasimhan, for the appellants. 
0. C. Mathur, I. B. Dadachanii and Ravinder Narain, 
for the respondent. 
February 14, 1964. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
'llubba Rao 1. 
'SuBBA RAo J.-This appeal by special leave raises the 
question of the applicability of the Bombay Tenancy and 
Agricultural Lands Act. 1948 (Born. Act No. 67 of 1948), 
hereinafter called the '1948 Act', to the tenancy of the land 
in dispute. 
The appellants are the legal representatives of one 
Prabhubhai Ratanji. The suit property is agricultural land 
situate within two miles of the limits of the Surat Municipal 
Borough. It was rpart of the erstwhile Sachin State. 
On 
May 7, 1946, Nagindas Atmaram Khatri, the respondent 
herein, who was the owner of the said land, gave a lease 
of the same in favour of the said Prabhubhai Ratanji for a 
period of six years. 
On July 28, 1948, Sachin State became 
part of the State of Bombay. From that date the Bombay 
Tenancy Act, 1939, heremafter called the "1939 Act", was 
made applicable to the said area. 
On April 23, 1951, 
Nagindas Atmaram Khatri, the landlord, gave a notice to 
the defendant t

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