LexTRIMBAK DAMODHAR RAIPURKAR versus ASSARAM HIRAMAN PATIL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
11/0l 700 SUPRE.ME COURT REPORTS [11162] SUPP. TRIMBAK DAMODHAR RAIPURKAR v. ASSARAM HIRAMAN PATIL AND ORS. (P. B. GAJENDKAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR1 JJ.) Tenancy-Termi11a1ion of-Valid notice gi•e11 btfort. commencement of new Act-Cou"e preacribed by •lat..U must be fol/owed~Riglu to eject, accruea only after the perwd Bpecified in notia is over-Exiating righl.'i and Vf!Bfed rights-Di•linc- tion-Sratute operating in fulure, affecting e.O.ti"9 rigH•-lf relro&pective-Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939(Bom. 29 of 193.?), •· 23(/)(b)-Bombay Tenoncy an4 Agricultural land• Act, I948(1Jom. 67 of 1948), ••· 6, 14(2)-Bo•nbay Tena>1cy and AgricuUural Landa (Amendment) Act, (Bom. 33 of 1962! 8. 2. In February 1943 the appellant leased our an agricul- tural land for 5 yean to the respondent. Before the expiry of the lease, the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939, was made applicable to the area where the land was situated, and under s. 23(l)(b) the period of the lease was statutorily extended to 10 years. During the subsistence of the tenancy thus statutorily extended, the Bombay Act 67 of 1948 came into force. In March 1952 the appellant gave notice to the respondents intimating that rhe statutory period·of tenancy expired on 31st March 1953, and called upon them to deliver possession immediately thereafter. Before the nNice could effectively be enforced the Bombay Act 33 of 1952 came into force, the effect of which was that the lca•e was automatically extended for 10 years from time to time, unless terminated by giving one year's notice with the aver .. ment that the land was required bona P.de by the landlord for personal cultivation and that that income would be the main source of income to the landlord. The appellant's case was that the technical requirements of a valid notice prescribed by the Amending Act do not apply to his claim inasmuch as the relevant provision• of the amending Act arc not retrospective in operation. The ques- tion was whether the appellant was entitled to eject the respondents even without complying with the statutory re- quircinent as to valid notice prescribed by the Amending Act 33 of 1952. Held, that by virtue of ·the· Amending Act 33 of 1952 the period of lease was automatically extended for a period of ten years from time to time, unless terminated by a valid (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 701 notice or a surrender was made by the tenant as •pecified by the statute, otherwise the tenancy would be extended from time to time at a stretch of every ten years. .In order to put an <nd to the tenancy, thus statutorily safe guarded, the landlord had to follow the course prescribed by the ai:nend- ing statute to give a valid notice as required by th~ said statute. The right of a landlord to obtain posses .ion docs not accrue merely on the giving of the notice, it accrues in· his favour on the date when the lease expires. It is only after the period specified in the notice is over and the tenancy in fact had expired that the landlord gets a right to eject the tenant and take possession of land. Held, fu~ther, that there is distinction between existing right and ve<Jted right. Where a statutt. operates in future it cannot be said to be retrospective merely because within the sweep of its operation all existing rights arc included. The operation of s. 5( 1) of the Amending Act is not retrospective, it merely affects in future the existing rights under all lea•es whether executed before or after the date of the Act. West. v. GW'1.Jnne, [191I] 2 Ch. 1,. Dv.rlabbhai Fakirbhai v . • Jha,erbhai Bhiltabhai, (1955) 58 Born. L. R. 85, applied. ,Ji,abhai.Purshottam v. Chhagan Karson, (1962]1 S; C. R. 568, referred to. . CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 19 0£1961. Appeal .by spAcia\ leave from the judgment and order dated April 11, 1957, of Bombay High Court, in Special Civil Applicatibn No. 3170 of 1956. K. R. Bengeri and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant. E. Udayaratnam and S. S. Shukla, for the respondent. 1961. November 29. 'lhe Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-This appeal by special leave arises out or a tenancy case instituted by the appellant against his tenants the respondents in the Court of the Mamlatdar Raver (East Khandesh), in the State of Maharashtra. The property in suit 1961 Trimbak D'lTllbdhor RtJipurkar .v. Assaram-HirQRJ'll'
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.