1. Ejectment suits against thika tenants — Dispute over jurisdiction of civil court versus Controller — Application of Section 30(c), Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
1965 Supreme(SC) 84
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
15th March. 1965
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., M. HIDAYATULLAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.
1. Sheikh Gulfan (In C.A. No. 48 of 1963), 2. Tapeswar Sawoo (In C.A. No.49 of 1963), 3. J.P. Ojha for self and Karta of Joint family (In C.A. Nos. 50 and 51 of 1963), 4. Brahamdeo Ojha and Ord. (In C.A. No. 53 of 1963), 5. Smt. Mati Bala Dassi (In C. A. No. 53 of 1963), Appellants v. Sanat Kumar Ganguli (In all the appeals) Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 48 to 53 of 1963.
Advocates appeared
Dr. W. S. Barlingay, Senior Advocate, (M/s. S. S. Khanduja and Ganpat Rai, Advocates, with him), for Appellants in all appeals; Mr. G. S. Pathak, Senior Advocate, (Mr. D. N. Mukherjee, Advocate, with him), for Respondents in all appeals.
Advocates:
D.N.MUKHERJI, G.S.PATHAK, GANPAT RAI, S.S.Khanduja, W.S.Barlingay
D.N.MUKHERJI, G.S.PATHAK, GANPAT RAI, S.S.Khanduja, W.S.Barlingay
Land subject to a betterment fee under the Improvement Act is not "required for carrying out the provisions" of that Act. Exceptions to beneficent social welfare legislation must be strictly construed to ensure the intended protection for tenants is not unduly restricted.
Headnote:(A) Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 - Section 30(c), Section 5 - Improvement Act, 1911 - Section 78A, Section 42 - Construction of exemption clause - Land required for carrying out provisions of the Improvement Act - Levy of betterment fee - Whether such land is exempt from the Thika Tenancy Act - The Act is a social welfare measure intended to protect tenants; therefore, any exception provided under Section 30 must be strictly construed (Paras 22, 23). Land is exempt under Section 30(c) only if there is a direct connection showing the land is necessary for carrying out a specific provision of the Improvement Act (Para 24). Since betterment fees under Section 78A are levied on land not required for the execution of a scheme, the mere levy and acceptance of such fee does not render the land "required" for the purposes of the Improvement Act (Paras 25, 26).
(B) Interpretation of Statutes - Beneficent legislation - Where two constructions are reasonably possible regarding an exception to beneficent legislation, the court should prefer the one that carries out the beneficent purpose and does not unduly expand the exception (Para 28).
Facts of the case:
A landlord filed suits for ejectment and arrears against tenants. The tenants claimed protection as thika tenants. The landlord contended that the land was exempt from the Thika Tenancy Act under Section 30(c) because it was included in an improvement scheme and a betterment fee had been levied and accepted by the landlord.
Findings of Court:
The land was not directly required for carrying out any specific provision of the Improvement Act. The payment of a betterment fee, which assists the board in discharging its functions, creates only an indirect connection and does not satisfy the requirement of Section 30(c).
Issues: Whether land in respect of which a betterment fee is levied under the Improvement Act is "required for carrying out any of the provisions" of that Act, thereby exempting it from the application of the Thika Tenancy Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 30(c) requires the land itself to be necessary for carrying out the provisions of the Improvement Act. Because Section 78A specifically deals with land not required for the execution of a scheme, such land cannot be deemed "required" for the Act's provisions. As the Thika Tenancy Act is a social welfare measure, its exceptions must be strictly construed to avoid narrowing the protection intended for the beneficiaries.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- property law
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Whether land subject to betterment fees under the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 is land required for carrying out its provisions under Section 30(c), Thika Tenancy Act. (Para 3 , 6 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
3. Social welfare legislation requires strict construction of exceptions — Betterment fee levy indicates land is not required for scheme execution — No direct necessity for specific provisions. (Para 19 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
4. Land subject to betterment fees under Section 78A, Improvement Act, is not land required for carrying out its provisions under Section 30(c), Thika Tenancy Act. (Para 24 , 26 , 28 )
5. Appeals allowed — Decrees of Division Bench set aside — Trial Judge's order dismissing suits as incompetent restored. (Para 30 )
6. How should exceptions to the applicability of social welfare legislation, such as the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, be construed?
Provisions creating exceptions or bars to the application of beneficent legislation must be strictly construed to ensure the social welfare purpose is not unduly narrowed or restricted. (Para 22 , 23 , 28 )
7. What constitutes land required for carrying out the provisions of the Calcutta Improvement Act under Section 30(c) of the Thika Tenancy Act?
It requires a direct connection where the land itself is necessary to carry out a specific provision of the Act, rather than an indirect connection through financial contributions. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 )
8. Does the levy of a betterment fee under Section 78A of the Improvement Act render land required for the Act's provisions under Section 30(c)?
No. Section 78A specifically applies to land not required for the execution of the scheme; thus, a betterment fee levy does not make the land required for the Act's provisions. (Para 26 )
9. Does Section 30(c) become redundant if the Improvement Board is considered a local authority under Section 30(b)(iv)?
No, as some lands may be required for specific provisions, such as raising, lowering, or levelling land or retaining open spaces, without being acquired by the Board. (Para 29 )
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I. : The short question which these six appeals raise relates to the construction of section 30(c) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 (W. B. Act No. II of 1949) (hereinafter called the Act ). This question arises in this way. The respondent Sanat Kumar Ganguli is the owner of a plot of land being premises No. 12, Haldar Lane, in Central Calcutta. This plot had been let out in several lots to the predecessors-in-title of the six appellants. On July 24, 1954, the respondent filed six suits Nos. 2245 to 224 of 1954 against the six appellants respectively on the original side of the Calcutta High Court, claiming decrees for ejectment against them and asking for arrears of ground rent and Municipal taxes.
2. The appellants contested the respondent s claim on the ground that the lands in suits had been taken by their predecessor-in-title from the owner as Thika tenants in or about the year 1900, and they alleged that they were in occupation of the said plots after having built substantial structures on them. The appellants further claimed that they had themselves let out portions of such structures to their own tenants. On these allegations, a preliminary objection to the competence of the suits was raised by the appellants on the ground that under S. 5 of the Act, a claim for ejectment of Thika tenants can be entertained only by the Controller, and so, the learned Judge on the original side of the Calcutta High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it.
3. The respondent admitted that the appellants were thika tenants and did not dispute that normally, a claim for ejecting such thika tenants could be tried only by the Controller; but he urged that the present suits fell within the scope of S. 30(c) of the Act and in consequence, the provisions of S. 5 and indeed, all other relevant provisions of the Act did not apply to them. That is how the respondent sought to meet the preliminary objection raised by the appellants.
4. In appreciating the nature of the controversy thus raised by the pleadings, it is necessary to mention some more facts. On February 9, 1940 a notice was issued by the Chairman of the Calcutta Improvement Trust under S. 43 of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 (Bengal Act V of 1911) as amended upto 1931. This Act will hereafter be called the Improvement Act . This notice shows that a scheme bearing No. 53 had been framed for the purpose of improvement of Calcutta by a street scheme in Ward No. 10 of the Calcutta Municipality for an area the boundaries whereof were described in the said notice. This notice gave the particulars of the scheme and was accompanied by a map of the area comprised in the scheme. It also contained the statement of the land which it was proposed to acquire as well as land on which betterment fee was proposed to be levied. These plans were open for inspection at the office of the Trust at No. 5, Clive Street, Calcutta. Along with this notice, another notice was published which gave a list of properties proposed to be acquired under the scheme and contained a statement of the land in regard to which betterment fees were proposed to be levied. Premises No. 12, Haldar Lane, were included in the latter category of lands,
5. In July 1952, proceedings were started for settling the betterment fee to be levied in respect of premises No. 12, Haldar Lane, and a letter was addressed by the Chief Valuer of the Calcutta Improvement Trust to the respondent on November 19,1952. This letter shows that the Chief Valuer had not received a reply from the respondent, though his advocate had accepted the assessment of betterment fee of Rs.15,000 in the Land Committee meeting which had been held on August 7, 1952 and confirmed by the Board on August 30, 1952. On November 19, 1952, however, the respondent recorded in writing that he accepted the said assessment.
6. The respondent s case before the learned trial Judge was that since betterment fee had been levied by the Board in respect of
