Case: Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde &amp; Others Vs. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale

no determination of the tenancy under the provisions of S. 3 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. It has to be noticed, however, that the requirement of a notice in writing being given by the lessor to the lessee of the lessors intention to determine the lease became a part of cl. (g) only on the amendment of the Transfer of Property Act by Act 20 of 1929. By S. 57 of this Amending Act the words "gives notice in writing to the lessee of" was substituted for the words "does some act showing". S. 63 of the Amending Act provided inter alia that nothing in S. 57 of the Amending Act shall be deemed in any way to affect the terms and incidents of any transfer of property made or effected before the first day of April 1930. A question has been raised that S. 57 of the Amending Act does not affect the present tenancy the lease having been given long before 1930 and the provisions of S. 111 (g) of the Transfer of Property Act which will apply to the tenancy in the present litigation are of cl. (g) as it stood before the Amending Act was passed. This argument however is repelled by pointing out that S. 3 of the Bombay Tenancy Act makes no distinction whatsoever as between tenancies and leases made before 1-4-1930, and those made after but instead it says generally that the provisions of Chapter V of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, shall in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, apply to the tenancies and leases of lands to which this Act applies. It has been suggested that the proper way of approaching this question is to read as a proviso to S. 111 (g) as well as the other Sections mentioned in S. 63 of the Amending Act, the words "the terms or incidents of any transfer of property made effective before 1-4-1929, will not be affected hereby." Is this a correct approach to the problem? When the Bombay Legislature spoke of the provisions of Chapter V of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, did they have in their mind the Transfer of Property Act as it stood actually in the Statute Book and not as it would have stood with such a proviso added? Is it not proper to bear in mind in this connection that the Bombay Tenancy Act was intended to benefit the peasants and to improve the cultivation of lands?17. In interpreting provisions of such beneficial Legislation the Courts always lean in favour of that interpretation which will further that beneficial purpose of that legislation. Is this not an additional ground for thinking that in adopting S. 3 the provisions of Chapter V of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Legislature had the intention of applying these provisions to all tenancies to which the Bombay Tenancy Act itself apply irrespective of the fact whether these tenancies were created before 1-4-1930, or not? It was contended therefore that even in so far as the claim for possession was based on the ground of forfeiture under the terms of the lease it was necessary for the landlord to prove that he had given notice in writing to the lessee of his intention to determine the lease. The Bombay Revenue Tribunal took the view that the plaintiff-respondent must fail in his application for possession because he had failed to terminate the tenancy by notice before taking proceedings for ejectment. Is the conclusion wrong and if so, is such error apparent on the face of the record? If it is clear that the error if any is not apparent on the face of the record, it is not necessary for us to decide whether the conclusion of the Bombay High Court on the question of notice is correct or not.An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. As the above discussion of the rival contentions show the alleged error in the present case is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments. We do not think such an error can be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior court to issue such a writ. In our opinion the High Court was wrong in thinking that the alleged error in the judgment of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal viz., that an order for possession should not be made unless a previous notice had been given was an error apparent on the face of the record so as to be capable of being corrected by a writ of certiorari.18. We have noticed that in the application to the High Court the respondent asked that Court to exercise its power of superintendence under Art. 227 of the Constitution by the method of issuing a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ. Art. 227 corresponds to S. 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915.The scope of that Section has been discussed in many decisions of Indian High Courts. However wide it may be than the provisions of S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is well established that the High Court cannot in exercise of its power under that Section assume appellate powers to correct every mistake of law. Here there is no question of assumption of excessive jurisdiction or refusal to exercise jurisdiction or any irregularity or illegality in the procedure or any breach of any rule of natural justice. If anything it may merely be an erroneous decision which, the error not being apparent on the face of the record, cannot be corrected by the High Court in revision under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under Art. 227.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]10. It has to be noticed that this Section does not in express terms provide for the act of termination of tenancy to be effected by notice given by the landlord. S. 29,(2) which provides that no landlord shall obtain possession of any land or dwelling house held by a tenant except under an order of the Mamlatdar, also does not provide that any notice has to be given before an application for possession is to befind that with full knowledge of the use of the word "determines" in S. 111 of the Transfer of Property Act the Bombay Legislature instead of saying that the tenancy "determines" or "shall not terminate" said that the tenancy "shall not be terminated". It is suggested that this different language was used deliberately and not by accident. Again, in(2) of S. 14 when the question of termination of tenancy by efflux of time in certain cases is provided for, the legislature, it is pointed out, says that the tenancy shall terminate at the expiration of such period.Of course as the present case is one of failure by the tenant for three years to pay rent within the period specified in S. 14 the provision in the operative portion of S. 25 will not, it is conceded, apply to this case but the argument is that that circumstance is no reason why we should not consider the language in S. 25 to see whether the Legislatures intention was that the termination should take place prior to and independent of, filing of the proceedings. The use of the word "and" in "where any tenancy of any land held by any tenant is terminated forof rent and the landlord files any proceedings to eject the tenant...... ...... ...... ...... ......" is, it is said, a justification for the conclusion that the Legislature contemplated and intended that in all cases of termination onof rent the termination should take place first and after the termination was completed the landlord was at liberty to file proceedings to eject the tenant. If this contention be correct there would be no justification for thinking that the Legislatures intention was different in this matter where thewas for threethe above discussion of the rival contentions show the alleged error in the present case is far fromand if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments. We do not think such an error can be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior court to issue such a writ. In our opinion the High Court was wrong in thinking that the alleged error in the judgment of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal viz., that an order for possession should not be made unless a previous notice had been given was an error apparent on the face of the record so as to be capable of being corrected by a writ ofwide it may be than the provisions of S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is well established that the High Court cannot in exercise of its power under that Section assume appellate powers to correct every mistake of law. Here there is no question of assumption of excessive jurisdiction or refusal to exercise jurisdiction or any irregularity or illegality in the procedure or any breach of any rule of natural justice. If anything it may merely be an erroneous decision which, the error not being apparent on the face of the record, cannot be corrected by the High Court in revision under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under Art. 227.