MANUJENDRA DUIT versus PURENDU PROSAD ROY CHOWDHURY & ORS .

Citation: [1967] 1 S.C.R. 475 · Decided: 22-09-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MANUJENDRA DUIT 
v. 
PURENDU PROSAD ROY CHOWDHURY & ORS . • 
September 22, 1966. 
[K. -SUBBA RAo, C. J. AND J.M. SHELAT, J:] 
Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, ss. 3 and 29-S. 3 whether over-
rides provision in lease agreement requiring landlord to give six months' 
notice ,to tenant for termination of lease-Suit 
for eviction of tenants 
transferred to Controller of Thika Tenancy under s. 29-Section repealed 
by Amending Act 6 of 1953-Controller's jurisdiction to try suit whether 
continues. 
The appellant was the tenant of the respondents on a piece of land. 
According to the lease agreement the period of lease was fixed at ten 
years but the lessee was entitled to renew the lease after that period 
under certain conditions. The lease agreement further provided that if 
the lessor required the lessee to vacate the premises whether at the time 
of the expiry of the lease or thereafter (in case tho !ei;seo exercised his 
option to renew the lease), six months' notice to the lessee was necessary. 
Tho lessee exercised his option to continue the lease arid offered to fulfil 
the conditions therefor. The Court of Wards on behalf of the respon-
dents, sought to impose further conditions for the renewal of the lease 
which the appellant did not accept. The Court 'of Wards thereUpon 
filed a suit in the Court of the First Subordinate Judge, Alipore for the 
eviction of the appellant on the ground that he was a trespasser. In the 
meanwhile the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 
1949 was passed by the 
West Bengal Legislature. 
As provided in s. 29 of the Act the suit was 
transferred to the Thika Controller. Thereafter Amendment Act 6 of 
1963 was passed which deleted s. 29 and the appellant urged before the 
Controller that he no longer had jurisdiction to try the matter. This con-
tention was reiected and on the merits the Controller decided against tho 
appellant holdmg that in view of s. :) of the Act the six months' notice 
required by the lease agreetnent for the ,eviction of the appellant was not 
nOCOS$'11'Y1 
The High Court also decided against the appellant who there-
upon came to this Court with certificate. 
HELD: (i) Though s. 29 was 
deleted by the Amendment Act of 
1953 the deletion could not affect pending proceedings and would not 
deprive the Controller of his jurisdiction to try such proceedings pending 
before him at the date when the Amendment 
Act came into force. 
Though the Amendment Act did not contain any saving clause, under 
s. 8 of the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899 the transfer of the suit 
having been lawfully made under s. 29 of the Act its deletion would not 
have the effect of altering the law applicable to the claim in the litigation. 
There is nothing in s. 8 of the Amending Act, 1953 suggesting a different 
intention and therefore the deletion would not affect the previous opera-
tion of s. 5 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, or the transfer of the 
suit to the Controller or anything duly done under s. 29. That being the 
correct position in law the High Court was right in holding that in spite 
of the deletion of s. 29 the Controller still had the jurisdiction to proceed 
with the said suit transferred to him. (479 G] 
(ii) The Thika Tenancy Act does not confer any additional ri~t.< 
on a landlord but on the contrary imposes certain restrictions on his right 
to evict a tenant under the general fr~w or under the contract of tease~ 
476 
SUPlU!MB COURT JlBPOR.TS 
(1967] l S.C.R. 
The Thika Act like other Rent Acts enacted in various States impo.es 
cenain further restrictions on the right of the landlord to evict his ten.ant 
and lays down that the status of irremovability of a tenant cannot be got 
rid of except on specified grounds set out in s. 3. The right of the ap-
pellant therefore to have a notice as provided for by the proviso to cl. 7 of 
the lease wa• not in any manner affected by s. 3 of the Thika Act. The 
effect of the non-0bstante clause was that even where a landlord bad duly 
terminated the contractual tenancy or is otherwise entitled to evict ru. 
tenant he would still be entitled to a decree of eviction provided his claim 
for po&Session falls under any one or more of the grounds in s. 3. Before 
therefore the respondents could be said to be en ti tied to a decree for 
eviction they had first to give six months' notice as required by the provioo 
to cl. 7 of the lease and such notice not having been admittedly given their 
suit for eviction could 

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