Case: Trimbak Damodhar Raipurkar Vs. Assaram Hiraman Patil And Ors

1. This appeal by special leave arises out of a tenancy case instituted by the appellant against his tenants the respondents in the Court of the Mamaltdar, Raver (East Khandesh), in the State of Maharashtra. The property in suit consists of agricultural lands, Survey Nos. 32 and 38, situated in the village Raipur. The respondents had executed a rent note in respect of these lands in favour of the appellant on February 5, 1943. The period for which the rent note was executed was five years and the rent agreed to be paid annually was Rs. 785. In ordinary course the lease would have expired on March 31, 1948. However, before the lease expired on April 11, 1946 the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939 (Bombay Act XXIX of 1939) was applied to the area of East Khandesh where the lands are situated, and in consequence as a result of Section 23 (1) (b) of the said Act the five years period stipulated in the rent note was statutorily extended to ten years; the result was that under the said statutory provision the rent note in favour of the respondents would have expired on March 31, 1953. During the subsistence of the tenancy thus statutorily extended the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act LXVII of 1948 came into force. This Act repealed the earlier Act of 1939 except Sections 3, 3 (a) and 4 as modified. Sections 5 and 14 (2) of this Act are material. On March 11, 1952 the appellant gave notice to the respondents intimating to them that the period of the rent note executed by them which had been statutorily extended would expire on March 31, 1953 and calling upon them to deliver possession of the lands to him immediately thereafter. Before the notice could be effectively enforced on the expiration of the period of the lease, however, Bombay Act XXXIII of 1952 came into operation on January 12, 1953. This Act repealed S. 14 (2) and amended S. 5 and added sub-s. (3) to it. Shortly stated the effect of this amendment was that the tenancy of the respondents, who were till then ordinary tenants as distinct from protected tenants, could not be terminated on the expiry of their tenancy except by giving one years notice and that too on the ground that the lands were required by the landlord for bona fide personal cultivation and that the income of the said lands would be the main source of income of the landlord. The relevant averments about these grounds had to be made by the landlord in issuing the notice to the tenants for terminating their tenancy.2. On April 4, 1953 the appellant instituted the present tenancy proceedings for obtaining possession of the lands. The Mamlatdar who tried the proceedings rejected the appellants claim on the ground that he had not terminated the tenancy of the respondents as required by law in that he had not given the statutory notice making the prescribed relevant averments in that behalf. The appellant then preferred an appeal against the decision of the Mamlatdar but the appellate authority agreed with the view taken by the Mamlatdar and dismissed his appeal. The dispute was then taken by the appellant before the Bombay Revenue Tribunal by way of a revisional application; and the revisional application succeeded. The Tribunal held that the relevant amendments on which the Mamlatdar and the appellate authority had relied in dismissing the appellants claim were not retrospective and that the appellant was entitled to eject the respondents. This order of the Revenue Tribunal was challenged by the respondents by a petition filed by them under Art. 227 of the Constitution in the Bombay High Court. The High Court has allowed the writ petition and held that the relevant amendments are retrospective in operation and that the appellant is not entitled to eject the respondents. On that view the order passed by the Revenue Tribunal has been set aside and that of the appellate authority restored. It is against this decision that the appellant has come to this Court by special leave.

Reasoning:
.In other words, before the lease in favour of the respondents could expire on March 31, 1953, by virtue of the proviso to S. 5 (1) of the amending Act of 1952 it got extended for ten years, and unless it is terminated by a valid notice or a surrender is made by the tenant as specified by the statute the tenancy would be extended from time to time at every stretch for ten years. Therefore, there can be no doubt that as a result of the amending Act of 1952 the expiration of the lease did not take place on March 31, 1953 as had been anticipated by the appellant when he gave notice on March 11, 1952. In one sense the amending Act which is undoubtedly a piece of beneficent legislation conferred on the respondents additional rights and these additional rights were conferred on them before the lease in their favour had come to an end.In order to put an end to the tenancy thus statutorily safeguarded the appellant has to follow the course prescribed by the amending statute and give a valid notice as required by the said statute. Just as the appellant could not have complained against the extension of the original period of five years to ten years by Act XXIX of 1939 so he cannot complain against the further extensions statutorily granted to the respondents by S. 5 (1) of the amending Act XXXIII ofBesides, it is necessary to bear in mind that the right of the appellant to eject the respondents would arise only on the termination of the tenancy, and in the present case it would have been available to him on March 31, 1953 if the statutory provision had not in the meanwhile extended the life of the tenancy. It is true that the appellant gave notice to the respondents on March 11, 1952 as he was then do doubt entitled to do; but his right as a landlord to obtain possession did not accrue merely on the giving of the notice, it accrued in his favour on the date when the lease expired. It is only after the period specified in the notice is over and the tenancy has in fact expired that the landlord gets a right to eject the tenant and obtain possession of the land. Considered from this point of view, before the right accrued to the appellant to eject the respondents, amending Act XXXIII of 1952 stepped in and deprived him of that right by requiring him to comply with the statutory requirement as to a valid notice which has to be given for ejectingwas held in Durlabbhais case, 58 Bom LR 85: ((S) AIR 1956 Bom 285   (FB)), that the relevant provisions of the amending Act would apply to all proceedings where the period of notice had expired after the amending Act had come into force and that the effect of the amending Act was no more than this that it imposed a new and additional limitation on the right of the landlord to obtain possession from his tenant. It was observed in that judgment thatnotice under S. 34 (1) is merely a declaration to the tenant of the intention of the landlord to terminate the tenancy; but it is always open to the landlord not to carry out his intention. Therefore, for the application of the restriction under sub-s. 2 (A) on the right of the landlord to terminate the tenancy, the crucial date is not the date of notice but the date on which the right to terminate matures; that is the date on which the tenancy standsthat case the Court was called upon to consider the question as to whether the provisions of S. 88 of Bombay Act LXVII of 1948 were retrospective in operation or not, and it has been held that the said provisions are prospective. However, we do not think that the position with regard to the provisions contained in S. 88 can be said to be analogous or similar to the position with regard to the relevant provisions of the amending Act XXXIII of 1952 with which we are concerned in the present appeal. Therefore, we do not think that Mr. Bengeri can make any effective use of the said decision.