SIDRAM NARSAPPA KAMBLE versus SHOLAPUR BOROUGH MUNICIPALITY & ANR.

Citation: [1966] 1 S.C.R. 618 · Decided: 27-08-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SIDRAM NARSAPPA KAMBLE 
v. 
SUOLAPUR BOROUGH MUNICIPALITY & ANR. 
August 27, 1965 
[P. 
B. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
C.J., K. N. 
WANCllOO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. C. SHAH AND S. M. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, (67 of 1948) ss. JI. 88 
and 89-Scope of. 
In 1946, the Bomhay Tenancy Act, 1939 was applied to the n:.spou-
dcnt-Municipality. Section JA of the Act provided that every Jenant shall. 
on the expiry of one year from the date of the coming into lorce of the 
Amendment Act of 1946, be deemed to be a protected tenant, unle;.< the 
landlord had within that period, applied to the Mamlatdar for a declara-
tion that the tenant was not protected. The appellant had taken on lease 
lands from the respondent, and since the respondents had not applied to the 
Mamlatdar, the appellant became a protected tenant. The !939 Act was 
repealed by th~ Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Sec-
tion 31 of the 1948 Act provided that a person shall be recognised to be 
a protected tenant, if ouch person had been deemed to be a protected 
tenant under s. 3, .lA or 4 of the 1939 Act. But •· 88 of the same Act 
provided that nothing in the foregoing provisions 
of 
the 
1948 
Act 
shall apply t<> lands held on lease from a local authority, while s. 89( 2) 
provided for the repeal of the 1939 Act except for ss. 3, 3A and 4 which 
con1inucd, a$ modified in Schedule I of the 1948 Act, and also provided. 
that nothing m the 1948 Act, or any repeal effected thereby shall '°ve as 
cxprcsslv provided m the 1948 Act, affect or be deemed to affect any 
right. ti1lc. interest, obligation or liability, acquired, accrued or incurrtxl 
before the commencerncnt of the t 948 Act. 
In J 955 the respondent gave notice to the appellant terminating his 
renancy and subsequently filed a suit for possession. Pending proceedings 
arising from the suit, the appellant applied to the Mamlatdar for a dec-
laration that he \\ra~ a protected tenant of the lands, and the ~famlatdar 
gave the declaration. 
On appeal, the Collector held that the ~!amlatdar 
had no jurisdiction to decide the question. 11le Bombay Revenue ·rrihunaJ. 
in revision, set aside the Collector's order, and the High C-0urt, 
in an 
application under Arr. '227. restored C..ollcctor's order. 
Jn his appeal to :his Court, the appellant contended that (i) the interest 
acquired hy him a.c; a protected tenant under the 1939 Act would not he 
affected in view of the provi<ions of s. 89(2) in the 1948 Act: and (iil 
the Mamlatdar had jurisdiction to decide the question under s. 888. 
HELD : (i) The plain effect of the provisions contained in s.<. JI. R8 
and 89(2) (b). is thal, in view of the express provision contained in 
s. 88 ( l ) (a). the appe11ant could not claim the benefit of s. 31, nor coulJ 
it be said rhat his inrerest as protected tenant wa.s saved by -"· 89( 2 I! h l. 
[625 G] 
A 
B 
c 
f) 
F, 
F 
G 
Sections 3. )A and 4 of the 1939 Act \\-'Cre continued in a nHl1.JiJic.~d 
II 
form in Schedule I of the J 948 Act only for the purpose of s. .l J of the 
1948 Act and a pc.ru.c;al of those sections shows that protected 1enan1..; 
were onl~· those renant.1 
~·ho sati:.fie.J 
th~e three section-; and that no 
' 
• 
• 
' 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
S. N. KAMBLE v. SHOLAPUR MUNC. 
6 I 9· 
new protected tenants could come into existence under the 1948 Act. 
As s. 31 is one of the foregoing provisions referred to in s. 88, it will 
not apply to lands held oin lease from a local authority. In effect, there-
fore, the legislature, which had conferred by the 1939 Act, the status 
of a protected tenant on certain persons, took away that status by enacting 
s. 88 in the 1948 Act so far as lessees from a local authority were con-
cerned. As far as s. 89(2) (b) is concerned, that part of it which says 
that any repeal effected thereby shall not affect or be deemed to affect 
any right etc., will not help the appellant becausa ss. 3, 3A and 4 of the 
1939 Act were not repeal·ad by the 1948 Act. 
Nor 
will 
the clause 
"nothing in this Act, shall affect or be deemed to affect" apply, if there 
is an express provision in the 1948 Act which takes away the interest 
of a protected tenant acquired before its commencement, because of the 
qualifying words, "save as expressly provided in this Act", in the section. 
Section 88, of the 1948 Act is such an express provision which takes out 
leases from a local authority from the purview of ss. 1 of 87 of the 1948 
Act, including s. 31 which is the

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