LexMOHANLAL CHUNILAL KOTHARI versus TRIBHOVAN HARIBHAI TAMBOLI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
r ~ ' 2 S.C.R, SUPREME COURT REPORTS 707 ' We are therefore of opinion that the finding 1' of the High Court that the loss took place due to the negligence of the railway servants and, conse- q11ently, of the railway administration, is justified. We therefore dismiss the appeal with costs. Appeal dismissed. MOHANLAL CHUNILALKOTHARI TRIBHOVAN HARIBHAI TAMBOLI (B. p. SINHA, c. J.; P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, N. RAJA'.GOPALA AYYANGAR and T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.) Suit-Decree-Law changed during pendency of apP<al- ·i Appdlate Oourt, if bound to apply changed law-Rettospecti•• ) operation-Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (Bom. LXVI of 1948, •· 88 (l)(d)-Bombay Tenancy Ace, W~&UW. . . Certain )ands were situated in the erstwhile State of Baroda before it became a part of the State of Bombay by mer- ger. The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, was extended to Baroda on August I, 1949. Suits were filed in the Civil Court by appellants-landlords against the respond- ents who were their tenants on the ground that the latter became trespassers with effect from the beginning of the new / agricultural season in May, 1951. . Decrees for possession were passed by the Civil Court in favour of landlords and the same were confirmed by the first appellate court. Ho\vever, the High Court accepted the appeals and dismissed the suito. It was held that under the provisions of s. 3A( 1) of the Born· bay Tenancy Act, 1939, as amended, a tenant would be deemed to be a protected tenant from August.I, 195() and ihat vested right. could not be affected by the notificaiion dated ¥ April 24,.1951 issued under s. 89 (I) (d) of the Act of 1948 by ,- which the land in suit was exclud_ed from the operation of the Act. The notification dated April 24, 1951 had no rc,trospective effect and did not take away the protection_ J96Z -~ Union qf Ind/• y, M/s. Udho Ram &1 Sorn RavAubar D•J•I J. 1962 Moy2. Moltwtlal Clu111llol 40C/Jcri •• Tril>Aoo.,,. H ribl<Oi l'.mboli 708 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1963] afforded to tenants by s. 3A. The landlords came to this ., Court by spedal leave. It was conceded that the appellants' suits for possession would fail if the Act applied to the ten· ancies in question, because in that c:1se only revenue courts had jurisdiction to try them. However, reliance was plated on notification dated April 24, 1951 which excluded the land in suit from the operation of the Act. It was also contended on behalf of appellants that the subsequent notification cancelling the first one, could not take away the rights which had accrued to them as a result of the first notification. Held, that the notification dated April 24, 1!151 was ~ cancelled by another notification dated January 12, 1953. The second notification was issued when the matter was still pending in the first court of appeal. The suits had therefore to be decided on the basis that there was no notification in existence which would take the disputed lands out of the operation of the Act. The first appellate court was wrong in holding that the suits had to be decided on the basis of facts in existence on the date of filing of the suits. Held, further, that the second ,;otification cancelling the first one did not take away any rights which had accrued to the landlords. If the landlords had obtained an effective decree and had succeeded in ejecting the tenants as a result • of that decree which may have become final between the parties, that decree may not have been re-opened and the execution taken thereunder may not have been recalled. However, it was during the pendency of the suit at the ap· pellate stage that the second notification was issued cancel- ling the first a.nd the r.ourt was bound to apply the law as it was on the date of its judgment. HeW., also, that clauses (a), (b) and (c) of s. 88(1) applied to things as they were on the date of the commence- ment of the Act of 194-8 whereas clause (d) authorised the State Government to specify certain areas as being reserved for urban non~agricultural or industrial development, by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time. It was specifically provided in clauses (a) to (c) that the Act, from its inception, did not apply to certain areas then identified, whereas clause ( d) had reference to the future. The State Government could take out of the operation of the Act such areas as
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.