Case: Gopi Krishna Kanoria Vs. Draupadi Sahaya and Ors

1. This is an appeal by certificate against a judgment of the Patna High Court in a suit instituted by the appellant for arrears of Mokurrari rent and cess with interest for four kists and for khas possession by evicting the respondents. In the alternative the appellant asked for the payment of compensation money in respect of Mokurrari tenure which had vested in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950.2. By means of a registered instrument dated October 29, 1885 the then proprietor of four villages had created a Mokurrari tenure (permanent lease) in favour of Frederick Richard Simson and George Venes. The appellant had acquired the proprietary interest in the villages by purchase and similarly the respondents had acquired the Mokurrari tenure. In the registered instrument there was a clause that in the event of a default in payment of four successive kists the proprietor would be competent to cancel the Mokurrari patta. The respondents did not pay four successive kists which had become due in June 1952, September 1952, December 1952 and March 1953. On June 22, 1953 the appellant served a notice terminating and cancelling the Mokurrari tenure in terms of the clause relating to cancellation. During the pendency of the suit which was filed by the appellant in September 1953 it was declared that the Mokurrari tenure became vested in the State of Bihar with effect from July 26, 1954 under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950. The plaint was amended and certain parties were added.3. The controversy was mainly confined to the question of payment of compensation. According to the appellant he was entitled to the entire compensation which was to be received from the State. The respondents maintained that no notice had been given under S. 155 of the Bihar Tenancy Act 1885, hereinafter called the "Act", and, therefore, the appellant could not sue for ejectment. Before the trial court it was admitted that the appellant did not serve a notice as contemplated under S. 155 of the Act. It was, however, contended that that section was not applicable. The trial court found that there had been a breach of the covenant relating to payment of rent which had resulted in forfeiture but inasmuch as the appellant did not follow the procedure prescribed by S. 155 the respondents continued to be the tenure-holders till the tenure vested in the State. The appellant was, therefore, not entitled to the entire compensation money including that of the tenure. The High Court upheld the decision of the trial court on the point.

Reasoning:
On a true construction of S, 10 and by necessary implication this freedom from the applicability of or consistency with the provisions of the Act is absolute and unqualified and the effect of the proviso is that any condition imposed by any of the provisions of the Act is excluded whenever there is a case where the contract has been entered into before the commencement of the Act. It has been emphasised that section 10 is a specific provision relating to permanent tenures and it cannot be restricted or curtailed by the general provisions of S. 178 and S. 155 of the Act. In this manner the applicability of S. 155 has been sought to be excluded.Now S. 10 simply provides that the holder of a permanent tenure shall not be ejected except on the ground that he has broken a condition on breach of which he is liable to be ejected under the terms of the contract. Section 178 (1) (c) says categorically that even though the contract has been made before the passing of the Act the landlord cannot eject a tenant otherwise than in accordance with its provisions. Section 155 places a bar against a suit being entertained unless the requirements laid down therein have been satisfied. Therefore even though under Section 10 the appellant became entitled to eject the respondents on account of the breach of the condition relating to payment of rent the condition precedent for a suit being entertained by a court was the notice served in the prescribed manner specifying the breach which was capable of remedy and in which the tenant should have been required to remedy the same or in any case to pay reasonable compensation for the breach. If the tenant had failed to comply within a reasonable time with that request then alone the suit was maintainable. Even if under the proviso to S. 10 the contract which was entered into before the commencement of the Act could contain conditions which were inconsistent with the provisions of the Act that did not dispense with the requirements of section 155 of the Act which had to be satisfied before any suit could be entertained. As the notice which had been served by the appellant did not comply with the provisions of S. 155 the courts below rightly negatived his claim to the entire compensation money.