LexJIVABHAI PURSHOTTAM versus CHHAGAN KARSON AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I96I
i'l arch 27.
568
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
JIV ABHAI PURSHOTTAM
v.
CHHAGAN KARSON AND OTHERS
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.)
Agricultural Land-Protected tenant-Notice by landlord for
termination of tenancy-Amendment of enactment-Appiicability-
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Hom. LXV II
of 1948), as amended by Amending Act XXXIII of 1952, ss. 34
(2A), 34(1).
Sub-section (2A) of s. 34 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agri-
cultural Lands Act, 1948, as amended by the Amending Act of
1952, applied from the date when the tenancy stood terminated
on expiry of the notice of ejectment served on the tenant by the
landlord under s. 34(1) of the Act and not from the date of the
notice.
The Amending Act could not be said to divest the landlord
of any vested right since he could have none till the period of
notice terminated and the tenancy came to an end.
Consequently, where the landlord gave notice of ejectment
nnder s. 34(1) of the Act, but the Amending Act came into force
before the period of notice expired the landlord could be entitl-
ed to possession only after satisfying the provisions of that sub-
section.
Durlabbhai Fakirbhai v. Jhaverbhai Bhikabhai, (1956) 58 Born.
L. R. 85, referred to.
Jeebankrishna Chakrabarti v. Abdul Kader Choudhitri, (1933)
I.L.R. LX Cal. 1037, distinguished.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal No.
153 of 1958.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated January 9, 1956, of the Bombay High
Court in Special Civil Application No. 2258 of 1955.
J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley, and Rameshwar
Nath, for the appellant.
S. P. Sinha, M. I. Khowaja and A.G. Dave, for
respondent No. 1.
1961. March 27.
The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
WANCHOO, J.-This appeal by special leave against
the judgment of the Bombay High Court raises a
question of the interpretation of s. 34 (2-A) of the
( "
•
..
_,, j
>
l S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
569
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act,
No. LXVII of 1948 (hereinafter called the Act). The
brief facts necessary for present purposes are these:
The appellant is the landlord and tho respondent a pro.
tected tenant. The appellant gave notice of t,ermina-
tion of tenancy to the respondent on December 31, 1951,
under s. 34( 1) of the Act. The notice was for one year
as required by s. 34(1) and the tenancy was to ter-
minate from after March 31, 1953.
The landlord
therefore made an application on April 7, 1953, under
s. 29(2) of the Act for obtaining possession of the land
to tho Mamlatdar. In the meantime, an amendment
was made to the Act by the insertion of sub-s. (2-A)
to s. 34 by the Amending Act No. XXXIII of 1952,
which came into force on January 12, 1953. By this
amendment certain further restrictions were placed
on the right of the landlord to terminate the tenancy
of a protected tenant. The relevant part of sub-
s. (2-A) is in these terms:-
"If the landlord bona fide requires the land for any
of the purposes specified in sub-section (1) then his
right to terminate the tenancy shall be subject to
the following conditions, namely-
(l) The land held by the protected tenant on
lease stands in the record of rights in the name of
the landlord on the first day of January, 1952, as
the superior holder.
(2) If the land held by the landlord is in area
equal to the agricultural holding or less, the land-
lord shall be entitled to terminate the tenancy of
the protected tenant, in respect of the entire area
of such land.
(3) If the land held by the landlord is more than
the agricultural holding in area, the right of the
landlord to terminate the tenancy of the protected
tenant shall be limited to an area which shall, after
such termination, leave with the tenant half the
area of the land leased.
(4) The tenancy in respect of the land left with
the protected tenant after termination under this
section shall not at anv time be liable to ho ter-
minated on the ground that the landlord bona fide
72
]ivabhai
Purshottam
v,
Clihagan Karson
&- Others
Wanchoo j.
Jivabhai
Pursholtani
v.
Chhagan [{arsnn
~ Others
Wanchoo }.
570
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
requires the said land for any of the purposes
specified in sub-section (1).
Explanation.-The "agricultural holding" shall
mean sixteen acres of jirayat land or four acres of
irrigated or paddy or rice land, or lands greater or
less in area than the aforesaid areas in the saExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.