K. EAPEN CHACKO versus THE PROVIDENT INVESTMENT COMPANY (P) LTD.

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 1026 · Decided: 01-11-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1026 
K. EAPEN CHACKO 
• 
v. 
THE PROVIDENT INVESTMENT COMPANY (P) LTD. 
November I, 1976 
JA. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.J 
Kera/a Land Reforms Act (Kera/a 1 of .1964) as amended in 1969 
and 
1971, Ss. 3(1), 50A, 52, 73, 108, 125 and 132(3)-Scope of. 
, 
Interpretation of Sllatute--Statute when retrospective. 
0 
The proviso to s. 3(1)(vii) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, J96t pro-
vided that nothing in clauses (i) to (vii) of s. 3(1) shall affect the rights of 
persons who are en~itled to the fixity of tenure immediately before 21 Januarv 
1,961 under any law then in force. 
The law prevailing 
immediate!, before 
21 January 1961, was the Malabar Tenancy Ac\, 1929. 
Under s. 23 of that 
Act a tenant would be liable to be evicted from his holding at the instance of 
his landlord if he intentionally committed acts of waste or defaulted in 
the 
payment of rent for more than 3 months. 
The proviso was 
amended 
by 
1969-Amendment Act which came into force on January 1, 1970. The amend-
ing AC1! also inserted in the Act new Ss. 50A, 52 and 73. 
Section 50A provid-
ed that a tenant entitled to fixity of tenure shall have the right to use 
his 
holding in any manner he thinks fit. 
Section 52 provided that a cultivating 
tenant shall have a right to cut trees and s. 73 is to 
the 
effectt 
that the 
maximum amount mat could be claimed by way of arrears of rent is only 
for 3 yearn. 
Section 108(2) was also amended and it provided 
that 
any 
decree passed before· the commencement of the section for the dispossession of 
a per5on from the land in his possession may on the application 
of 
such 
person be reopened and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the 
1964 Act as amended by the 1969-Act provided dispossession has not been 
affected. 
Section 125(3) provided that if in any suit or proceeding questions 
regarding the rights of a tenant arose. the civil court shall stay such proceed-
ings, and refer the quesmon to the Land Tribunal having jurisdiction over the 
area. Section 132(3) provided that any decreEl pursuant to which eviction has 
not been effected may, on the application of the tenant or the landlord be 
reopened and the mat<ter disposed of in accordance with the provisions 
of 
the Act. 
The respondent owned about 550 acres out of which more than half was 
Coffee planted area. 
He leased the plantation and 
the 
rema;ning unplanted 
area to the appellant in 1950 for 12 years. 
Clause ( 4) of the lease prov:ded 
that if the rent was in arrears for 30 days after ,it became due it was lawful 
for the lessor to forfeit the lease and re-enter on the land. 
Alleging 
that 
since 1953 the appellant had neglected to pay the rent, me respondent filed the 
suit claiming possession of the land, arrears of rent, and damages for waste. 
The trial court decreed the suit in 1966 and the decree was confirmed bv the· 
High Court with the enhanced damages in Fe1¥uary 1969. In appeal to this 
Court the appellant contended that; he was entitled to fixity of tenure; that 
the unplanted area was not a plantation and so he wao;, entitled to fixitv of 
tenure therein; ~hat the proceedings were to be disposed of in accordance with 
the provisions of the 1964 Act as amended by 1969 Amendment Act, that is. 
that all questions regarding rights of tenont, ~:od bn<llords could he decided 
only bv the Land Tribunal; and that the damages were awarded contrary to 
the provisions of the Act as amended. 
He therefore. filed 
an 
application 
praying for reopening of the decree passed by the High Court and also con-
tended that in view of the amendments in 1971 the appeal is to be disposed 
of. in acco1dance with the provisions of the Act, as amended in 1969 :md 
1971. 
Dismissing the appeal tio this Court, 
HELD ; In the present case, the decree was passed by the trial court as 
f 
well as by the High Court after the 1964 Act came into force but before the 
, 
/ 
' 
K. 'EAPEN CHACKO. V. PROVIDENT INVESTMENT CO. (Ray, C.J.) 1027 
1969 amendment. 
The decree was correctly passed in accordance with the 
provisions.of the 1964 Act, since the amendments were prospective and not 
retrospective. ·[1036 E-F] 
( 1) A statute has to be looked into for the general scope and purview of 
the statute and at the remedy sought to .be applied. 
In that connection. the 
former state of law is bo be considered and also the legislative changes 
con-
templeted by the statute. 
Words not requiring retrospect

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