Section 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act is constitutionally valid as it balances landlord-tenant rights rather than relying solely on vicinage. Additionally, the right of an immediate landlord to seek transfer of land applies to alienations made by under-tenants.

Headnote:(A) West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 - Sections 2, 3, 4, 7, 23, 24 - West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1954 - Section 2(1)(i) - Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(f) - Right of immediate landlord to apply for transfer of non-agricultural land - Contiguity and purpose of use - Applicability to under-tenants - Constitutional validity of restriction on transfer - Where a non-agricultural tenant transfers rights to a third party, the immediate landlord may apply for the land to be transferred to themselves, provided the land is contiguous to land in their possession and is required for purposes specified in Section 4. (Paras 6-7)

(B) Definition of non-agricultural tenant - The statutory definition of a "non-agricultural tenant" includes both "tenants" and "under-tenants". Consequently, a transfer of rights by an under-tenant to a third party attracts the provisions of Section 24, entitling the immediate landlord to apply for the transfer of the land. (Para 8)

(C) Intermediary - A person who is a non-agricultural tenant does not fall within the definition of an "intermediary" under the relevant estates acquisition legislation. Therefore, the interests of such a tenant do not vest in the State by virtue of being an intermediary. (Para 9)

(D) Constitutional Validity - A restriction on the right to transfer property based on contiguity and the requirement that the land be used for specific purposes is not an unreasonable restriction under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution if it is part of a broader legislative scheme to adjust rights between landlords and tenants and ensure security of tenure, rather than being based solely on vicinage. (Paras 10-11)

Facts of the case:
A society, acting as the immediate landlord of a plot of land, applied for the transfer of said land to itself after the under-tenants transferred their rights to a third party. The application was based on the land being contiguous to the society's existing holdings and being required for the expansion of an educational institution. The lower courts had conflicting views on the contiguity of the land and whether the society's status as an intermediary affected its right to claim the transfer.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the land was contiguous and bona fide required for educational purposes, which falls under the permitted purposes of the Act. It further held that the society was not an "intermediary" under the Estates Acquisition Act and that the transfer by under-tenants triggered the landlord's right to apply for transfer under the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act.

Issues: Whether the right of transfer under Section 24 of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act applies to transfers by under-tenants; whether the landlord was an "intermediary" whose interests vested in the State; and whether Section 24 constitutes an unreasonable restriction on the right to hold property under the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that since the definition of "non-agricultural tenant" encompasses "under-tenants," the statutory right of the immediate landlord to seek transfer upon alienation applies. It further determined that the restriction in Section 24 is reasonable as it serves the legislative objective of adjusting landlord-tenant rights and providing tenure security, distinguishing it from pre-emption laws based exclusively on vicinage.

Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.

Judgment

SHELAT, J. : This appeal by special leave relates to a plot of land admeasuring about .41 decimals situate within the municipal limits of Chandernagore.

2. Respondent No. 1 is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, XXXI of 1860. Its objects as set out in Cl. 3 (s) of its Memorandum of Association inter alia are "to work, manage, develop, improve and utilise properties and business for the promotion of education, art science, religion and charity or other useful objects". On March 23, 1941 one Kashinath Seal, the owner of a large plot of land, granted a permanent lease of the land in dispute out of the said plot in favour of respondents 2 and 3. By a registered deed of lease, dated September 29, 1944 he granted lease of the entire plot of land including the land in dispute to one Motilal Roy for 99 years. So far as the land in dispute is concerned, which as aforesaid was leased out to respondents 2 and 3, the said Motilal Roy acquired under this lease only the right of realising the rent. The said Motilal Roy was the founder of the 1st respondent Association and was a mere benamidar thereof. By a deed of relinquishment, dated March 14, 1953 he relinquished all his interest in the said plot in favour of the 1st respondent Association. By a registered deed of sale with a condition for reconveyance, dated November 3, 1960 respondents 2 and 3 transferred the land in dispute to the appellant and handed over its possession to him. On coming to know of this sale the 1st respondent Association made an application claiming a right of transfer under S. 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, XX of 1949 on the ground that it was the immediate landlord in relation to that land that the land in question was contiguous to its other lands and that it required it for the purpose of extension of the school conducted by it.

3. The Trial Court dismissed the application holding that the land in dispute was not contiguous to the land in possession of the 1st respondent Association. It, however, held that it was satisfied that the 1st respondent Association required the said land, bona fide for the purpose of expanding its school. In an appeal against this order by the 1st respondent Association. the Additional District Judge set aside the finding of the Trial Court holding that the land in dispute was adjacent to the other land in possession of the 1st respondent Association. But he held that the 1st respondent Association was an "intermediary" within the meaning of S. 2 (a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1 of 1954. that, therefore, its interests vested in the State of West Bengal on the extension of the Act to Chandernagore after its merger in the State of West Bengal and consequently respondent No. 1 had no right to claim transfer and dismissed the appeal. The 1st respondent Association thereupon filed a revision application in the High Court under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Art. 227 of the Constitution.

4. Three contentions were raised before the High Court on behalf of the present appellant: (1) that the first respondent Association was an intermediary within the meaning of S. 2 (1) (i) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act and, therefore, all its rights vested under that Act in the State of West Bengal, (2) that S. 24 of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act did not apply as (a) the land in dispute was not contiguous, (b) that under proviso (b) to that section it must be established to the satisfaction of the Court that such land was required for any of the purposes specified in S. 4 and that the Courts below had not given any finding as to their satisfaction; and (3) that S. 24 did not apply to a case where an under-tenant transferred his rights to a third party as the section applied only to a transfer by a tenant. The High Court repelled all the three contentions and allowed the revision setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Additi