Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
20th April, 1960
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO AND K.C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.
Mahadeolal Kanodia, Appellant
Versus
The Administrator General of West Bengal, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 303 of 1956.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. G. S. Pathak, Senior Advocate (M/s. P. K. Chakravarty and B. C. Misra, Advocates with him), for Appellant; Mr. B. Sen Senior Advocate, (M/s. S. N. Mukherjee and P. K. Bose, Advocates with him), for Respondent.
CALCUTTA THIKA TENANCY ACT - AMENDMENT ACT - SECTION 1(2) - INTERPRETATION - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 28 TO PENDING PROCEEDINGS - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT - CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - RULES OF INTERPRETATION - BENEFICENT LEGISLATION - AMBIGUITY - ABSURDITY OR INCONSISTENCY.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Thika tenant, had filed an application under Section 28 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, seeking relief against a decree for possession obtained by the landlord. The application was pending when the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1953, came into force, which omitted Section 28 from the original Act. The question before the Court was whether the provisions of Section 28 could still be applied to the appellant's application.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Section 28 of the original Act was not applicable to the appellant's application, as the Amendment Act had retrospectively omitted that section. The Court interpreted Section 1(2) of the Amendment Act, which provided for the application of the amended provisions of the Act to pending proceedings, as meaning that the Act in its new shape, without Section 28, would apply to all pending proceedings, including the appellant's application.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 28 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, could be applied to a pending application for relief under that section after the omission of the section by the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1953. 2. Interpretation of Section 1(2) of the Amendment Act, which provided for the application of the amended provisions of the Act to pending proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court applied the following principles of interpretation to Section 1(2) of the Amendment Act: - Statutory provisions creating or taking away substantive rights are ordinarily prospective and retrospective only if expressly or necessarily implied by the Legislature. - The intention of the Legislature is gathered from the words used, giving them their plain, normal, grammatical meaning. - If a provision is ambiguous and capable of two meanings, one preserving and the other taking away a benefit, the meaning that preserves the benefit should be adopted. - If strict grammatical interpretation leads to absurdity or inconsistency, an interpretation that gives effect to the Legislature's purpose should be adopted, even if it requires modification of the language. 2. Applying these principles, the Court found that the plain meaning of Section 1(2) was that the amended provisions of the Act, including the omission of Section 28, would apply to all pending proceedings, including the appellant's application.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not entitled to relief under Section 28 of the original Act as the section had been retrospectively omitted by the Amendment Act.
Judgment
DAS GUPTA, J.: In Calcutta and its suburb Howrah there have existed for many years precarious tenancies popularly known as Thika tenancies, the characteristic feature of which is that the tenant takes lease of the land only and erects structures thereon at his own expense; where there is already a structure on the land the tenant acquires these structures by purchase or gift but takes the land on which the structure stood in tenancy. With the influx of population into these areas that followed the partition of India the position of these Thika tenants became even more insecure than before. With the sharply rising demand for accommodation the landlords found it possible and profitable to put pressure on these Thika tenants to increase their rents or to evict them so that other tenants who would give more rents and high premiums might be brought in. With a view to give some protection to these Thika tenants against eviction and in certain other matters, the West Bengal Legislature enacted in 1949 an Act called the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Some features of the protection afforded by this legislation which deserve mention are that ejectment could be had only on one or more of the six grounds specified in S.3 of the Act; special provisions as regards notice for ejectment were made in S. 4; in the same section provisions was also made about payment of compensation as a necessary pre-requisite for ejectment in certain case. Section 6 provides that no orders for ejectment on the grounds of arrears of rent shall be executed if the amount of arrears together with costs of proceedings and damages that may be allowed were deposited within 30 days from the date of the order. Not content with giving such protection only in suits and proceedings for eviction that might be instituted by the landlord in future the Legislature in the 29th section of this Act provided that even in suits and proceedings which had already been instituted and were pending for disposal on the date when the new law came into force, this new law will be applicable, except the provisions as regards notice in S. 4. In the 28th section of the Act the Legislature went further and provided that even where the decree or order for recovery of possession had been obtained by the landlord against a Thika tenant but possession had not been actually recovered, courts will have the power to re-open the matter and if the decree or order is not in conformity with the beneficent provisions of the Act either to rescind the decree or order altogether or to vary it to bring it into such conformity. Section 28 with which we are specially concerned in this appeal is in these words.
"Where any decree or order for the recovery of possession of any holding from a Thika tenant has been made before the date of commencement of this Act but the possession of such holding has not been recovered from the Thika tenant by the execution of such decree or order, the court by which the decree or order was made may, if it is of opinion that the decree or order is not in conformity with any provision of this Act other than subsection (i) of Section 5 or Section 27, rescind or vary the decree or order in such manner as the court may think fit for the purpose of giving effect to such provision and a decree or order so varied by any Court shall be transferred by such Court to the Controller for execution under this Act is if it were an order made under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
2. The new law however failed to achieve its objects for some years as the courts interpreted the definition of Thika tenant in the Act in such a manner that speaking generally no tenant was able to establish its requirement. To remedy this the Governor of West Bengal enacted on October 21, 1952, an Ordinance by which the definition of Thika tenant was revised and a few other amendments of the Act were made. The special protection given under Ss. 28 and 29 of
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
