SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1957 Supreme(SC) 82

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
10th September 1957.
BHAGWATI, S.K. DAS AND GAJENDRAGADKAR, JJ.
Kanai Lal Sur, Appellant
Versus
Paramnidhi Sadhukhan, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No.291 of 1955
Advocates appeared
Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate (Mr. S. N. Mukherjee Advocate with him), for Appellant; Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Sr. Advocate (Mr. D. N. Mukherjee, Advocate, with him), for Respondent

Advocates:
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, D.N.MUKHERJI, N.C.CHATTERJI, S.N.MUKHERJEE

S. 5(1) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, as amended by the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1953, does not confer jurisdiction on the controller to entertain execution proceedings in respect of decrees for ejectment already passed in favor of landlords.

Headnote:

CALCUTTA THIKA TENANCY ACT - EXECUTION OF DECREE - JURISDICTION - CONTROLLER OR CIVIL COURT - S. 5(1) OF THE ACT AS AMENDED BY ACT VI OF 1953 - CONSTRUCTION - DECREE-HOLDER S APPLICATION FOR EXECUTION OF DECREE - WHETHER CAN BE ENTERTAINED BY CIVIL COURT.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a thika tenant, challenged the execution proceedings initiated against him by the respondent, the decree-holder, arguing that under S. 5(1) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, as amended by the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1953, execution proceedings could only be entertained by the controller and not by the civil courts.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that S. 5(1) of the Act, as amended, did not confer jurisdiction on the controller to entertain execution proceedings in respect of decrees for ejectment already passed in favor of landlords. The Court interpreted S. 5(1) as dealing with original applications for ejectment made by landlords against their thika tenants, and not with execution proceedings.

Issues: Whether S. 5(1) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, as amended by the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1953, conferred jurisdiction on the controller to entertain execution proceedings in respect of decrees for ejectment already passed in favor of landlords.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted S. 5(1) of the Act, as amended, in light of its plain grammatical meaning and the overall scheme of the Act. The Court found that the provisions of S. 5(1) were inapplicable to execution proceedings, as they dealt with original applications for ejectment made by landlords against their thika tenants. The Court also considered the deletion of S. 28 from the Act, which had previously provided for the scrutiny of decrees for ejectment in light of the provisions of the Act, and the introduction of S. 5(2) of the amending Ordinance of 1952, which provided a specific remedy for judgment-debtors to challenge decrees passed against them.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the civil courts had jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition filed by the respondent against the appellant.

Judgement

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.- This is an appeal by special leave in execution proceedings and the short point which the appellant has raised before us is that, under S. 5(1) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act II of 1949 (West Bengal Act II of 1949) as amended by the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1953 (West Bengal Act VI of 1953), execution proceedings taken out by the decree-holder against him could be entertained only by the controller and not by the civil Courts.

This point arises in this way. The appellant is a thika tenant in respect of a portion of the premises No. 28, R. G. Kar Road in Calcutta.. In Suit No.46 of 1948 a decree for ejectment was passed against him and in favour of the respondent on March 16, 1949. This decree was challenged by the appellant by preferring an appeal before the District Court and a second appeal before the High Court at Calcutta; but both those appeals failed and the decree for ejectment passed by the trial Court was confirmed.

Then followed several proceedings between the parties and the course of litigation between them turned out to be protracted and tortuous. Ultimately on May 22, 1953, the respondent filed an execution case before the First Additional Court, Sealdah (Title Execution Case No.34 of 1953). By this application the respondent claimed that the possession of the property covered by the decree should be delivered to him.

Thereupon the appellant filed a Miscellaneous Judicial Case under S. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Court raising several objections to the decree-holder s claim for execution (Miscellaneous Judicial Case No.96 of 1953). This case was dismissed by the executing Court on February 2, 1954.

A miscellaneous appeal preferred by the appellant before the learned District Judge, 24 Parganas as well as the second miscellaneous appeal preferred by him before the High Court at Calcutta were likewise dismissed. The appellant then applied for leave to prefer an appeal under the Letters Patent.

This application was rejected by Mr. Justice Renupada Mukherjee who had heard the second appeal. On May 10, 1955, the appellant filed a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court and special leave was granted to him on May 18, 1955.

The Courts below have held that the decree-holder s application for execution of the decree passed in his favour can and ought to be entertained by the civil Courts and an order has been passed against the appellant that he should vacate the premises in question before the end of Jaistha 1362 B.S. (15th June, 1955), failing which execution will proceed according to law.

The appellant s contention is that the view taken by the Courts below about the competence of the civil courts to entertain the decree-holder s execution application proceeds on a mis-construction of S. 5 (1) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act. That is how the only question which arises for our decision is about the construction of the said relevant section.

2. Before dealing with this point, it would be useful to consider briefly the history of legislation passed by the West Bengal Legislature with the object of affording protection to the thika tenants. Until 1948 the rights and liabilities of the landlords and their thika tenants were governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act.

On October 26, 1948, the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Ordinance XI of 1948, was promulgated because it was thought expedient, pending the enactment of appropriate legislation to provide for the temporary stay of the execution of certain decrees and orders of ejectment of thika tenants in Calcutta.

Section 2 of the Ordinance defined the thika tenant. Section 3 provided that no decree or order for the ejectment of a thika tenant shall be executed during the continuance in operation of the Ordinance. From the operation of this section were excluded decrees or orders for ejectment passed against thika tenants on the ground of non-payment of rent unless the tenants deposited in Court t














































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top