MANEKJI EDULJI MISTRY AND ORS. versus MANEKSHA ARDESHIR IRANI & ANR.

Citation: [1972] 1 S.C.R. 334 · Decided: 20-08-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Transferred to High Court
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

834 
MANEKJI EDULJI MISTRY AND ORS. 
v. 
MANEKSHA ARDESHIR IRANI & ANR. 
August 20, 1971 
[C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, A. N.RAY AND D. G. PALBKAII., JJ.) 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948-.l'ection 5 as 
amended by Bombay Act XXXllI of 1952-lf' applied to protecteti 
tenancy. 
The respondents were lessees of the appellants for a period of 5 years 
from March 1, 1943. They were protected tenants under the Bombay 
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. They contended 
that the 
appellants-landlords could not claim eviction, because, 
being 
protected 
tenants their lease was extended by statute up to February 28, 1953, and 
as a result of the amendment of s. 5 of the 1948 Act by amendillg Act 
of 1952 the period of lease was further extended 
upto 
February 28, 
1963. 
On the question whether a protected tenant could claim the benefit of 
s. 5 as amended by amending Act of 1952, 
HELD: Section 5 of the 1948 Act as amended in 1952 did not apply 
to protected tenancy. 
The principal reason was that the tenancy of a protected tenant under 
the j948 Act was of unlimited time. 
Whereas a tenant other than a 
protected tenant had a security only for 10 years and it was only under 
s. 5 as amended in 1952 that a tenant other than a protected tenant be-
came entitled to renewal of the tenancy for a period of 10 years in succes-
sion as mentioned in the said section. Any such renewal, for periods of 
ten years, of a protected tenancy, would be destructive of the 
protected 
tenant's unlimited security as to duration of tenancy. Secondly, if s. 5 as 
amended in 1952 applied to protected tenants the manner of termination of 
tenancy mentioned in s. 5, namely, by giving one year's notice in writing 
before the end of each period of ten years would have been totally in-
consistent with the manner of termination of tenancy of a protected tenant. 
The tenancy of a protected tenant could be terminated by one year's 
notice on the grounds mentioned in s. 34 whereas the tenancy of one other 
than a protected tenant, could be terminated on the grounds mentioned in 
s. 34( 1) only at the end of each period of ten years. Thirdly, if the word 
tenancy occurring in s.5 as amended in 1952 related to protected tenancy 
the words "as if such a tenant was a protected tenant in s. 5(2) would 
not have been necessary". And finally, s. 5 as amended in 1952 was in Ch. 11 
which contained general provisions regarding tenancies and ss. 31 and 34 
of 1948 Act which related to protected tenants, occurred in Ch. III of the 
1958 Act. [341 H-342 HJ 
Trimbak Damodhar Rajpukar v. Assaram Patil, [1962] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
700, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2435 of 
1966. 
c 
E 
F 
G 
Appeal fdom the judgment an order dated November 6, and 
H 
December 6, 1962 of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No. 
453 of 1960. 
, 
' 
A 
B 
c 
D 
MANEKJI V. MANEKSIIA (Ray, J.) 
V. S. Desai, R. G. Samant, P. C. Bhartari and J. B. Dada-. 
chanji, for the appe'lants. 
V. M. Tarkunde, K. R. Chaudhuri. K. Rajendra Chaudhuri 
and Hari Singh, for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
' 
Ray, J. 
This appeal is by certificate against the judgment 
dated 6 November/6 December, 1962 of the Bombay High Court 
dismissing the appellants' suit filed on 14 September, 1959 against 
the respondents, inter alia, for possession of suit property. 
By an indenture of lease dated 16 March, 1944 the respon-
dents became lessees of the appellants for a period of 5 years 
from 1 March 1943 in respect of the agricultural lands belonging. 
'to Jivanji Jamasji Mistry's Adarian Charities .. The app•;:llants 
terminated the tenancy of the respondents by notice to quit dated 
25 October, 1955. The notice to quit was effective on the expiry 
of 31 March, 1957. The appellants without prejudice to the 
October, 1955 notice gave another notice to qui'! dat·~d 10 June, 
1958 to deliver possession within 7 days. 
'Ifie respondents contended that they were protecfed t·~nants 
under the Bombay Tenancy Acts 1939 and 1948 and, therefore,. 
the appellants would not be entltled to possession. 
F; 
The trial Court held that after 31 March, 1957 the· respon-
dents continued in posession and the appellams allowed the res-
pondents to continue in posession by extending the term of the· 
lease at least for one year up to 31 March, 1958. The trial Court 
held that the notice dated 25 October, 1955 terminating the ten-
ancy with effect from 31 March, 1957 c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.