1. Landlord issued termination notice under Section 34(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act before an amendment introducing Section 34(2-A) came into force. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1961 Supreme(SC) 134
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
27th March, 1961.
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR AND K.N. WANCHOO, JJ.
Jivabhai Purshottam, Appellant
Versus
Chhagan Karson and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 153 of 1958.
Advocates appeared
M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath, Advocate of M/s. Rajinder Narain & Co., for appellant; Mr. S. P. Sinha, Senior Advocate, (Mr. M. I. Khowaja, Advocate, for A. C. Dave, Advocate, with him), for Respondent No. 1.
Advocates:
A.C.Dave, J.B.DADACHAN, M.I.KHVAJA, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY, S.P.SINHA
A.C.Dave, J.B.DADACHAN, M.I.KHVAJA, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY, S.P.SINHA
The right to terminate a tenancy matures on the date of actual termination, not the date of notice. Therefore, amending legislation restricting the right to terminate applies to notices issued before the amendment if the tenancy terminates after the amendment comes into force.
Headnote:(A) Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Sections 34(1), 34(2-A) and 29(2) - Termination of tenancy of protected tenant - Application of Amending Act - Notice of termination given before amendment but tenancy terminating after amendment - Whether restrictions imposed by the Amending Act apply - The notice under Section 34(1) is merely a declaration of the landlord's intention to terminate the tenancy; the right to terminate is perfected and matures on the date the tenancy actually terminates - The crucial date for the application of restrictions on the right to terminate is the date of termination, not the date of notice (Paras 4 and 5).
(B) Vested Rights - A landlord does not acquire a vested right to obtain possession until the period of notice has expired and the tenancy has terminated - Amending legislation coming into force before the termination of tenancy does not affect any vested right (Para 5).
(C) Interpretation of Statutes - Beneficent legislation meant for the protection of tenants - Any doubt regarding the meaning of provisions should be resolved in favour of the tenant (Para 6).
Facts of the case:
A landlord issued a one-year notice to terminate the tenancy of a protected tenant before an amending act came into force. The tenancy was set to terminate after the amending act had come into effect. The amending act introduced further restrictions on the landlord's right to terminate the tenancy. Upon the landlord's application for possession, the tenant claimed the benefit of the new restrictions introduced by the amendment.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the restrictions introduced by the amending act apply to all cases where the tenancy had not actually terminated before the act came into force, regardless of when the notice was issued.
Issues: Whether the restrictions on the right to terminate a tenancy introduced by an amendment apply to notices given before the amendment came into force, provided the tenancy terminates after the amendment's commencement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a notice of termination is a declaration of intention and not the termination itself. The right to terminate matures on the date the tenancy actually ends. Since the restriction is on the right to terminate, the law applicable is that which exists on the date of termination. Furthermore, as the act is beneficent legislation for tenants, any ambiguity should be interpreted in the tenant's favor.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether restrictions under Section 34(2-A) apply to notices issued before the amendment if the tenancy terminates after the amendment's commencement. (Para 3 )
3. Notice is a declaration of intent; the right to terminate matures and is perfected only upon the actual termination of the tenancy. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. The crucial date for applying restrictions on the right to terminate tenancy is the date of termination, not the date of notice. (Para 4 , 5 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 7 )
6. Does an amendment restricting the right to terminate tenancy apply to notices issued before the amendment?
Yes, provided the tenancy terminates after the amendment comes into force. The restriction applies on the date the right to terminate matures—the date the tenancy actually terminates—rather than the date the notice was issued. (Para 4 , 5 )
7. Does the application of a subsequent restrictive amendment to a prior notice violate a landlord's vested rights?
No, because a notice is merely a declaration of the landlord's intention to terminate. A vested right to obtain possession only arises after the notice period expires and the tenancy actually stands terminated. (Para 5 )
8. How should ambiguities in the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act be resolved?
Since the Act is beneficent legislation designed for the protection of tenants, any doubt regarding the meaning of its provisions should be resolved in favor of the tenant. (Para 6 )
Judgment
WANCHOO, J. : This appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Bombay High Court raises a question of the interpretation of S. 34 (2-A) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. No. LXVII of 1948 (hereinafter called the Act). The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these : The appellant is the landlord and the respondent a protected tenant. The appellant gave notice of termination of tenancy to the respondent on December 31, 1951, under S. 34(1) of the Act. The notice was for one year as required by S. 34(1) and the tenancy was to terminate from after March 31, 1953. The landlord, therefore, made an application on April, 7, 1953, under S. 29(2) of the Act for obtaining possession of the land to the Mamlatdar. In the meantime, an amendment was made to the Act by the insertion of sub-s. (2-A) to S. 34 by the Amending Act No. XXXIII of 1952, which came into force on January 12, 1953. By this amendment certain further restrictions were placed on the right of the landlord to terminate the tenancy of a protected tenant. The relevant part of sub-s. (2-A) is in these terms :-
"If the landlord bona fide requires the land for any of the purposes specified in sub-section (1) then his right to terminate the tenancy shall be subject to the following conditions, namely -
1. The land held by the protected tenant on lease stands in the record of rights in the name of the landlord on the first day of January, 1952, as the superior holder.
2. If the land held by the landlord is in area equal to the agricultural holding or less, the landlord shall be entitled to terminate the tenancy of the protected tenant, in respect of the entire area of such land.
3. If the land held by the landlord is more than the agricultural holding in area, the right of the landlord to terminate the tenancy of the protected tenant shall be limited to an area which shall, after such termination, leave with the tenant half the area of the land leased.
4. The tenancy in respect of the land left with the protected tenant after termination under this section shall not at any time be liable to be terminated on the ground that the landlord bona fide requires the said land for any of the purposes specified in sub-section (1).
Explanation. - The "agricultural holding" shall mean sixteen acres of jirayat land or four acres of irrigated or paddy or rice land, or lands greater or less in area than the aforesaid areas in the same proportion :
* * * * * * *
The restriction contained in sub-s. (2-A) is in addition to the restrictions in sub-s. (2) which lays down that the landlord shall have no right to terminate the tenancy of a protected tenant, if the landlord at the date on which the notice is given or at the date on which the notice expires has been cultivating personally other land fifty acres or more in area, provided that if the land which is being cultivated personally is less than fifty acres, the right of the landlord to terminate the tenancy of the protected tenant and to take possession of the land leased to him shall be limited to such area as will be sufficient to make the area of the land which he has been cultivating to the extent of fifty acres.
2. When, therefore, the landlord applied for possession of the land under S. 29(2) of the Act, the tenant objected and claimed the benefit of the third clause of sub-s. (2-A), and the question that arose for determination was, whether the tenant was entitled to the protection contained in this clause. The Mamlatdar to whom the application under S. 29(2) was made allowed the application. The respondent thereupon appealed but his appeal was dismissed. He then went in revision to the Revenue Tribunal, which was rejected. The tenant then filed an application under Art. 227 of the Constitution before the High Court and contended that the provision of S. 34(2-A) should have been taken into consideration by the Revenue Courts in deciding the application of the landlord under S. 29(2) and that the revenue co
