NEMAI CHANDRA KUMAR (D) THR. LRS. & ORS versus MANI SQUARE LTD. & ORS

Citation: [2022] 11 S.C.R. 416 · Decided: 27-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
416
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 11 S.C.R.
   [2022] 11 S.C.R. 416
416
NEMAI CHANDRA KUMAR (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.
v.
MANI SQUARE LTD. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2402 of 2015)
JULY 27, 2022
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Tenancy Law – Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 – Calcutta
Thika and Other Tenancies and Land (Acquisition and Regulation)
Act, 1981 – ss. 3(7) 3(8) & 5 – West Bengal Thika Tenancy
(Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001 – ss. 2(14) & 4 – Thika
Tenant – On 15.12.1973, ‘JN’ leased out the property to appellants
for a period of 20 years – By this lease deed, the lessees were also
given the right to raise construction and to use and enjoy the same
during the tenure with a condition that on expiry of the lease on
30.11.1993, the lessees will have to deliver vacant and peaceful
possession – The lessees raised some structure over the subject
property – After the Act of 2001 came into force, the appellant filed
application before the Controller for declaration that they were thika
tenants and they had deposited rent with interest with the Controller
for the period from 18.01.1982 till 2007 – After demise of the said
‘JN’, his heirs, transferred the property to seven companies – The
Controller declared the lessees as thika tenants over the property –
Objections raised by the respondents were rejected by the Controller
– Tribunal found no reasons to interfere with the findings of
Controller and dismissed the appeal – The High Court allowed the
writ petition filed by respondent while holding that the appellants
did not qualify as thika tenants – On appeal, held: Section 4 of the
Act of 2001 read with the Amendment Act of 2010 put it beyond the
pale of doubt  that until the advent of the Amendment Act of 2010
w.e.f. 01.11.2010, erection of pucca structure on the leased land
did not bring the tenant within the definition of thika tenant – The
Act of 2001 and its amendments have rightly been referred to, by
the High Court in the impugned judgment while construing the Act
of 1981 – Amendment Act of 2010 was given only prospective effect
from 01.11.2010 and not the retrospective effect – The lease in
question came to an end on 30.11.1993, thereafter, the appellants
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
417
ceased to be persons liable to pay rent at monthly or in any other
periodical rate – In that position, they ceased to answer to the
definition of thika tenant within the meaning of Section 3(8) of the
Act of 1981 similarly, within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act
of 2001 – The  High Court has rightly observed that it was never
held in Purushottam Das Murarka that if tenant of a land would raise
pucca structure, he would automatically become a thika tenant –
The High Court has meticulously examined the matter in its right
perspective.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The object and purpose of these enactments and
text of the relevant provisions, when examined with reference to
their texture and context, the provisions of vesting as evolved
by way of originally enacted Section 5 of the Act of 1981 and as
provided for in Section 4 of the Act of 2001 read with the
Amendment Act of 2010 put it beyond the pale of doubt that until
the advent of the Amendment Act of 2010 w.e.f. 01.11.2010,
erection of pucca structure on the leased land did not bring the
tenant within the definition of thika tenant and thus, there could
not have been any vesting in the State under Section 5 of the Act
of 1981 (whether originally enacted or amended) or under Section
4 of the Act of 2001, as originally enacted. [Para 26][465-D-E]
2. This Court also observe that ordinarily, a later enactment
may not be a safe external aid for interpreting the preceding
enactment on the same subject but the object and purport of the
enactments dealing with thika tenancies commencing from the
year 1949 and continuing with successive enactments of 1981,
its amendment in 1993, then the enactment of 2001 and its
amendment in the year 2010, formed a series of legislative
exercises towards the same subject, i.e., protection of thika
tenants. Hence, the later promulgation of the Act of 2001 and its
amendments could have been referred to, and have rightly been
referred to, by the High Court in the impugned judgment while
construing the Act of 1981. [Para 27][465-F-G]
2.1 There are other strong reasons for which too, the
successor enactment is required to be taken in aid for construing
NEMAI CHANDRA KUMAR (D) THR. LRS. & ORS. v. MANI
SQUARE LTD. & OR

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