HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Chunder
ACHALA SUNDARI DASSI - Appellant
Versus
SATISH CHANDRA MONDAL - Respondent
Civil Revn. 11 Of 1952
Decided On : JUNE 04, 1953
Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act - Pre-emption Proceedings - Interpretation of Tenant Rights
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant under a raiyat, contested that his rights as an undertenant should not be governed by the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act as the original raiyati was governed by the Bengal Tenancy Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the petitioner's contention, stating that the land in question clearly fell within the definition of non-agricultural land and as rent was paid, the tenant was considered a non-agricultural tenant. The court also held that under-tenants were included within Section 24 of the Act.
Issues: Interpretation of tenant rights under the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the definitions of non-agricultural tenant and under-tenant under the Act and concluded that the petitioner's rights were indeed governed by the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act.
Final Decision: The Rule was discharged with costs as both grounds urged by the petitioner failed.
( 1 ) THIS Rule was issued in connection with pre-emption proceedings under Section 24, Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act. The petitioner is a tenant under a raiyat i. e. according to the classification of the Bengal Tenancy Act he is an under-raiyat.
( 2 ) THE first contention of the petitioner is that as the original raiyati was governed by the Bengal Tenancy Act, his rights as undertenant will not be governed by the Non-Agri-culiural Tenancy Act. This contention cannot prevail for the very simple reason that ncn-agrlcultural tenant and non-agricultural land have been defined in Section 2 of the Act, Clauses (4) and (5 ). In connection with Section 2 (4) it may be pointed out that land which comes within the Bengal Tenancy Act and is excluded is only land mentioned in Sub-clauses (b) and (c) cf Clause The land in the present proceeding does not come within either of there. There is no contention that the land has been let out and is used for purposes not connected with agri-cultural or horticultural, having been let out and having been used for residential purposes. Therefore it is clearly within the definition of non-agricultural land and as rent is paid, the tenant is a non-agricultural tenant.
( 3 ) THE second argument is that under Section 24 what would be under-raiyati land i. e. land of an under-tenant, is not included. That conten-tion cannot prevail because in Section 3 it is clearly provided that "for the purposes of this Act there shall be the following classes of non-agri-cultural tenants viz. . tenant and under-tenant. " So, under-tenants are also for the purposes of this Act, which will be for the purposes of Section 24 as well, tenants and under-tenants. Therefore, under-tenants are within Section 24 of the Act.
( 4 ) THESE were the only two grounds urged and as both fail, the Rule is discharged with costs.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.