LexSHIBSANKAR NANDY versus PRABARTAK SANGHA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SIDBSANKAR NANDY v. PRABARTAK SANGHA AND ORS. February l, 1967 (K. SUBBA RAO, C.J., J.C. SHAH, J.M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.j We.rt Bmga/ Non-Agricu/lura/ Tenancy Act (20 of 1949) 1. 2+-- Corufition.s for app/lcabilily of su1ion-Validity of seclion wi1h ref<r.nce to Con.stltulion of /,,d;a, Art. 19(1)(/). We.rt Bengal EJtatu Acq11iJition Act (I of 1954), !. 2(1)(i)-No11- Agricultural tenant receiving rent from under-tenant-Whether "inth'- 111ediary .'" llelpoodenl No. I, a Sociely registered under the Socielics ReJlistralioo Act, 1860, IOOk to lease a piece of land pan of which was already leased to Respondents 2 and 3. Under the lease Respondent No. 1 was entitled 10 receive rent from Respondcnls 2 and 3. 1be latter transferred Ille land held by them to the appcllanl. Respondent No. 1 thereupon filed an application claiming the right of lraosfer under s. 24 of the West Benpl Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act. 1949. 1be trial Coun and the appc11ale coun dismissed the application bu1 the High Court, in revision, allowed it. By special leave, the appellant came to thi• Coun. It was urged on behalf of the appellant : (i) that the terms of s. 24 of the aforesaid Tenancy Acl were not salisfied in the case, (ii) that s. 24 was ultra vlru as the riglj1 of transfer therein was based solely on the ground of vicinage and created an unreasonable reslriction oo lhe guaranteed right of the ap~ollant and res,'ondents Ne•. 2 and 3 under s. 19( 1 J ( f) of the Ccnsti· tution and (iii) that Responden1 No. 1 being only entitled to receive rent from respondents 2 and 3 was an "inlermediary" within the meaning of 1he Wcs1 Bengal Estates Acquisition Act and therefore all its rights vesled under the Act in the Slale of West Bengal. HELD: (i) Th-. Society was the immediale landlord of the land in dispute. The said land was contiguous lo the other land in ils actual possession, and was bona fide required by it for the expansion of ils edu- cational iru;titution. The purpose for which it was required was covered by cl•. (b) and ( c) of s. 4 of the Tenancy Act. The "'rms of s. 24 of the Act were therefore fully salisfied in the ca.e. [562 B-EJ (ii) The object of s. 24 is to ha\·e an adjustment of the rights of land- lords and lenanls. The consideration of the land being contiguous i• - the solo oonsiderarion. The principle of Bhau Rmn v. B. Baljnath .(iinglt's case is not therefore attracted. The restriction contained in s. 24 cannot by any means be treated as an unreasonable restriction [565 DJ Bhau Ram v. Baijnath Singh. [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 724, distinguish· ed. Ram Sarup v. Munshi, (1963] 3 S.C.R. 858, relied on. (iii) Being itself a non-agricultural tenant the !st respondent was ex- cluded from the definition of "intermediary" by the terms of s. 2(1 )(i) of the Estales Acquisition Act. [563 D-EJ Clv11. APPELLATE JuRISDICTIOS : Civil Appeal No. 1004 of 1965. B c D E F G H SH!BSANKAR v. PRABARTAK (Shelat, !.) 559 A Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 27, 1963 of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Rule No. 3723 of 1962. D. N. Mukherjee and Dhurba Kumar Mukherjee, for the appel- lant. B Sukumar Ghose, for respondent No. I. c D E F G H The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. This appeal by special leave relates to a plot of land admeasuring about · 41 decimals situate within the municipal limits of Chandernagore. · Respondent No. I is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, XXXI of 1860. Its objects as set out in clause 3(s) of its Memorandum of Association inter alia are "to work, manage; develop, improve and utilise properties and business for the promotion of education, art, science, religion and charity or other useful objects." On March 23, 1941 one Kashinath Seal, the owner of a large plot of land, granted a permanent lease of the land in dispute out of the said plot in favour of respondents 2 and 3. By a registered deed of lease dated September 29, 1944 he granted lease of the entire plot of land including the land in dispute to one Motilal Roy for 99 years. So far as the land in dispute is concerned, which as aforesaid was leased out to respondents 2 and 3, the said Motilal Roy acquired under this lease only the right of realising the rent. The said Motilal Roy was the founder of the !st respon- dent Association and was a mere benamidar thereof. By a deed of relinquishment
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.