SHAH BHOJRAJ KUVERJI OIL MILLS AND GINNING FACTORY versus SUBBASH CHANDRA YOGRAJ SINHA

Citation: [1962] 2 S.C.R. 159 · Decided: 21-04-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 11 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.lt. SUPREME COURt REPORTS 
159 
· "Were the evacuee to come back he could demand 
1961 
to take possession of the siteJ and so it cannot be 
G kh 
R 
said that the right has ceased to exist. The right 
01 ;, 
am _ 
ceases only if the ocqupier leaves the village perma- custodian General 
nently with no intention of returning, ... " 
of India, Delhi 
It was nobody's case that Fakira and his son had left 
Raghubar 
the village temporarily and were to return. lt was 
Dayal ;. 
said in paragraph 5 of the written statement of 
respondents 1 to 3 that Fakira abandoned the house 
only in 194 7 at the time of partition. The entire case 
was that Fakira had migrated to Pakistan and had 
abandoned the village. 
We are therefore of opinion that Fakira did not 
possess any such right in the land in -suit which could 
vest in the Custodian and that therefore the property 
in suit is not 'evacuee property'. We therefore allow 
the appeal with costs throughout and, setting aside 
the order of the Court below, allow the petition and 
quash the order of the Custodian General dated June 
17, 1952, declaring the property in suit to be evacuee 
property. 
Appeal allowed. 
SHAH BHOJRAJ KUVEI~JI.OIL MILLS 
AND GINNING FACTORY 
v. 
SUBBASH CHANDRA YOGRAJ SINHA 
(S. K. DAs, J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDA YATULLAH, 
J. C. SHAH and T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.) 
Rent Control-Landlord's right to recover possession-Statu-
tory bar-If prospective or retrospective in operation- Bombay 
Rents, Hotel and Lodging House RattJs Control Act, 1947 (Bom. 57 
of 1947), ss. 6, 12(1). 
On the expiry vf the appellant's tenancy for the occupation 
of the premises-in dispute, the respondent who was the landlord 
filed a suit for possession of the premises. Meanwhile under s. 6 
of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control 
Ig6I 
160 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
ti962] 
I96r 
Act, 1947, a notification was issued applying Part II of the Act 
to the area where the property was situated. The appellants 
Shah Bhoj1aj claimed protection of s. 12, Part II of the Act, which deprived 
Kuve1ji Oil Mills the landlord of the right of possession under certain circum-
& Ginning Factrry stances. The Court of first instance decided the suit against the 
v. 
appellant and the High Court ruled that s. 12 was prospective 
Subbash Chandra in character and did not apply to pending suits or proceedings. 
Yograj Sinha On appeal by special leave 
Held, that the point of time when sub-s. (r) of s. !2 operates 
is when the decree for recovery of possession has to be passed. 
The language of the sub-section which provides that the land-
lord is not entitled to recover possession if the tenant pays or 
shows his willingness to pay the standard rent and to observe 
the other conditions of the tenancy is such that it applies equa11y 
to suits pending when Part Ir. comes into force and those to be 
filed sub.jeq uen.tly and is not limited only to suits filed after the 
Act comes into force in a particular area. 
A section may be prospective in one part and retrospective 
in another .part. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of s. 12 were clearly 
prospective but the words of the first sub-section showed retros-
pective operation. 
Nilkanth Ram Chandra v. Rasiklal, (1949) 51 Born. L.R. 280 
and Chandra Singh M anibhai v. Surjitlal Sudhamal Chhabda, 
[1951] S.C.R. 221, distinguished. 
· 
Rhonda Urban Council v. Taff Vale Railway, [1909] A.C. 253, 
Mullins v. Treasury of Surrey, (r88o) 5 Q.B.D. 170 and Fitzgerald 
v. Champne:ys, (1861) 70 E.R. 958, referred to. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JuRISDICTION: Civil 
Appeal 
No. 49 of 1961. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated August II, 1960, of the Bombay High 
Court in Civil Revision Application No. 320 of 1959. 
M. C. Setalvad, AttorneywGeneral for India, Ramesh-
war Nath, S. iV. Andley and P. L. Vohra, for the 
appellants. 
C. ]{. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, Naushir 
Barucha and ]{, R. Choudhuri, for the respondent. 
1961. April 21. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
Hidayatullah ]. 
HIDAYATULLA.H, J.-This is a tenant's appeal, with 
the special leave of this Court, against an order of 
Naik, J., of the High Court of Bombay in Civil 
Revision Application No. 320 of 1959, by which he 
r 
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
161 
disallowed certain rale&s raised by the appellants. The 
196I 
res0
pon
8
dent isbthe andlord. 
11 
h d 
d 
Shah Bhojraj 
n eptem er 11, 1942, the appe aD;ts a exe.cute Kuverji Oil Mills 
a rent note,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.