NATHIA AGARWALLA & ANOTHER versus MUSST. JAHANARA BEGUM & OTHERS

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 926 · Decided: 15-03-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

926 
NATl-llA AGARWALLA & ANOTHER 
v. 
MUSST. JAHANARA BEGUM & OTHERS 
March 15, 1966 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, c. J., K. N. WANCHOO, M. 
HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH ANDS. M. S!KRI. JJ.] 
Assam Non.Agricul1ural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955, s. 5(1) (a)-
protecrio11 to 1enants agai11st ejectment-ll'lietlier availclble where dec:re.: 
for ejectment already obtciined. 
A decree for cjcctment was passed against ahc appellants in November 
1950 in a suit filed against them by the respondcnLc; and was later confinn· 
cd by the High Court. ·1be exccuaion proceedings began in August 1954 
iUld were pending when the Assam Non·Agncultural Urban Areas Tenancy 
Act 1955 came: into force from June 26, 
1955. 1be appellants there-
upon claimed the benefit of s. 5(1 )(a) of the Act (which grants protec-
tion from eviction to tenants under certain circumstances) on the ground 
that the protection of Seciion 5 was available not only in pending !>Uits 
and appeals but also in pending execution cases. This claim was rejected 
by the execution Coun and an appeal to the High Court was also dis-
missed. 
On appeal 10 this Court, 
HELD: 
·1bc prolection under Section S(l}(a) was not available: 
where a decree in cjectmcnt had already hecn obtained. 
Section 5 ( l) begins by stating "not withsunding anything in any 
contract or in any la.w for 1he time being in force hut it does not include 
decrees for ejcct.mcnt already obtained, in the non-<>hstante clause. 
Clause (a) of Section 5 (l) protects tenants of land from cjectmcot 
by the landlord in tho;e cases in wh;ch the tenant entitled to build on 
the land under his contract ha~ actually built a permanent structure within 
five years from the d;ite of his contract, or has without l>Uch right built 
with the knowledge and acquiescence of the landlord. Such tenant may 
not be ejected except for non-payment of rent. 
Clause (a) applies alike 
to contracts mldc before or after the commencement of the Act but as 
it intends 10 operate on the rij!hts of the landlol'd. rights ;1lrcady enforced 
and detcnnined cannot be 'aid to be involved and the clause must contem-
plate a suit and not execution proce-;:dings. 
The fact that Section 14 of the Sylhct. Non-Agricultural Urban Areas 
Tenancy Act 1947 repeakd by the 1955 Act and Section 6( I) of hoth 
Assam Act 13 of 1949 and As.sam Act 3 of 1946 provided specially 
for execution proceedings clearly shows that where the Assam Legislature 
wito;hcd it, it included execution proceedings within the pr()(eclion. 
Suresh Chandra Datt" v. Aslwtoslr Dulla mzcl Others A.I.R. 1960 Aso;am 
24, referred to. 
A 
B 
c 
I) 
E 
F 
G 
Q)mparini ~tatulc of different states is not to be commended because 
similarity or v:iriation in the laws of different States is not necessarily 
indicative of a kindred or a changed intention. 
Enactments drafted by 
H 
different hands, at different times and to satisfy different requirements 
of a local character. seldom afford tangible or sure aid in construc-
tion. [9:!9 F~ F: 9311 E: 931 B-DI 
·. 
; 
.. 
AGARWALLA v. JAHANARA (Hidayatullah, J.) 
927 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 893 of 1963 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
August 14, 1959 of the Assam High Court in Appeal from Original 
Order No. 21 of 1959. 
M. C. Setalvad, B. P. Maheshwari and M. S. Narasimhan, 
B 
for the appellants. 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
B. Sen, and P. K. Ghosh, for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullah J. This is an appeal by special leave against 
an order of the High Court of Assam dated August 14, 1959 re-
jecting summarily an appeal in an execution case. The appellants 
against whom the decree for ejectment is being executed are the 
widow and son of one Maliram Agarwala whose father Arjun Das 
had taken on lease the suit land from one Mohd. Soleman, pre-
decessor-in-interest 
of 
the respondents. 
The 
decree 
was 
passed as far back as November 28, 1950 in a title suit filed .against 
the appellants and was later confirmed by the High Court. 
The present execution began on August 16, 1954 and was 
pending in the court of the Subordinate Judge, L.A.D., Gauhati 
when the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas 
Tenancy Act, 
1955 (Assam Act 12 of 1955) came into force from June 26, 1955. 
The appellants thereupon claimed the benefit of s. 5 of the Act 
which grants protection from eviction to tenants, under certain 
circumstances. The 
execution Court heard arguments and on 
November
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.