SAFALI ROY CHOUDHURY & ORS. versus AMARENDRA KUMAR DUTTA

Citation: [1976] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 595 · Decided: 06-05-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
595 
SAFALI ROY CHOUDHURY & ORS. 
v. 
AMARENDRA KUMAR DUTTA 
May 6, 1976 
I 
[P. N. BHAGWATI, A. C. GUPTA AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.] 
Interpretation of sratuteSr---Repea/ and saving prov'4ion-lntention of LeRis--
lature-Whether saving provisi'on can override new rights created by repealing 
statute. 
A 
B 
"" 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882-Sec. 5-52-Transfer of Property-List 
.. 
' 
' 
Pendens-lf applies to rights created by a stature. 
West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) 
Act 1950-
C 
West Bengal Premises 'Tenancy Acr 195&-Sec. 2(h), 16 and 40. 
The respondent was the tenant of the suit premises and Dilip Narayan Roy 
Choudhury was his sub-tenant. The tenant instituted a suit against the sub-
tehant when the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (TemI'Orary Provisions) 
Act, 1950 was in force seeking to evict the sub-tenant on the ground that 
he was a defaulter in payment of rent. After the suit was instituted, West 
Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 19'56, was brought into operation. Section 40 
of the subsequeht Act repealed the 1950 Act and further provided that not-
withstanding the repeal of the said Act any proceedin2s pending on the date 
of the repeal may be continued as if the said Act had been in force and 
had not been repealed or had not expired. Section 16 of the 1956 Act cohfers 
on the sub-tenant, on his complying with certain conditions the right to become 
a tenant directly under the landlord ahd authorise the Rent Controller to pass 
necessary orders directing that the sub-tenant shall become tenant directly 
under the landlord from the date of the order. The sub-_tenant adopted pro-
ceedings under sectioh 16 of the Act against the superior landlord and in 
February, 1957, the Rent Controller held that the. sub-tenant was entitled to 
the declaration asked for over-ruling the: objections raised by the tenant. An 
appeal filed by the tenant against the said order was dismissed. Thereafter, 
the sub-tehant amended his written statement in the suit f.or eviction filed by 
the tenant against him and pleaded that the relationship Of the lahdlord and 
tenant between the tenant and the sulJ..tenant no lohger subsisted. The Munsiff 
dismissed the application for eviction filed by the tenant on the ground that in 
view of he order pa.ssed uhder the 1956 Act declaring the· sub-tenanL to be a 
direct tenant under the landlord the relationship of landlord altd tenant between 
the parties ceased. In a revision, the High Court piaintained the order rejecting 
the application for evictioh but set aside the finding) that the relationship of the 
landlord a'f!d tenant between the tenant and the sub-tenant ceased. The High 
Court held that in spite of section 40 of the repealing Act, section 16(3) of the 
Repealing Act must be' given effect to. Tub High Court, however, took the 
view that the proceedings under section 16(3) having been initiated during the 
pendency of the suit the principle of lis pendens would apply and, accordingly, 
the <>Tiier under s. 16(3) would hot govern the suit. 
In an appeal by special leave by the heirs ot the sub-tenant, the counsel 
for the respondent did not rely on s. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act but 
sought to support the decree Qn the ground that in view Of s. 40 of the Repeal'" 
ing Act the entire proceedihgs under s. 16 was without jurisdiction. 
Allowin!? the appeal, 
D 
E 
F 
G 
HELD : ( 1) The doctrine of Tis pe1idens can have no application to this 
H 
case. The doctrine of tis pendens means that no party to the litigation can 
aliehate the property in dispute so as to all'ect the other party and reatli upon 
the foundation that it would plainly be impoS"SibJ~ that any action or suit could 
be brought to a successful termination after alienation pendente lite. Section 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
596 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1976] SUPPLEMENTARY 
5 of the .'J!ansfer of Property Act defines transfer of property as an act by 
which a hving person conveys property to another. 
When the Legislature 
in 
exercise of its sovereign powers regulates or alters the rights Of landlord and 
tenant, what it_ does is not transfer of property attracting the doctrine of /is 
pendens. [599B, C-F] 
(2) It is true that in view of s. 40 of the Repealing Act a pending proceed-
ing may be cohtinued as if the Repealing Act was not passed. This, however, 
does not ll)ean that even if the 1'956 Act created a new right in favour Of the 
tepant, he would be denied this right beca

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