Case: Rafiquennessa  Vs. Lal Bahadur Chetri (Dead) Through His Representatives And After Him His Legal Representatives And Others

We would, therefore, mention the facts broadly in C. A. No. 549/1962 in dealing with the common point raised for our decision. The appellant in this case is Mst. Rafiquennessa who sued the predecessor of the respondents for ejectment. It appears that Lal Bahadur Chetri had executed a registered lease-deed in favour of the appellant on the 14th February, 1946. The lease covered an open plot of land and under the covenant the lessee was entitled to build a house for residential purposes. In ordinary course, the lease was due to expire of the 12th February, 1952, and the lessee had agreed to deliver vacant possession of the land at the expiration of the stipulated period. Accordingly, a notice to quit was served on him to vacate on the 12th February, 1952. He however, did not comply with the notice and that led to the present suit by the appellant for eviction (No. 149 of 1952). In support of her claim, the appellant alleged that the lessee had contravened the terns of the lease inasmuch as he had sublet the premises built by him, and so, that was an additional ground for evicting the lessee. The sub-lessees were accordingly joined as defendants to the suit.2. The lesseee Chetri alone resisted the suit. The sub-tenants let into possession by him did not join issue with the appellant. The trial Judge decreed the appellants claim whereupon the lessee Chetri filed an appeal in the Court of the Sub-Judge, Lower Assam District, Gauhati, challenging the validity and the correctness of the decree passed against him (Civil Appeal No. 24/1953).3. While the appeal was pending, the Act was passed and was published in the Assam Gazette on the 6th July, 1955. Thereafter, when the appeal came on for hearing before the lower appellate Court, the tenant filed an application praying that he should be permitted to take an additional ground under S. 5 of the Act. Before that date, the Assam High Court had taken the view that the said provision of the Act was applicable to the pending proceedings between landlords and tenants for eviction and that was the basis on which the tenant Chetri wanted to support his appeal. The lower appellate Court allowed the tenants plea, framed an additional issue in pursuance of it and sent the matter back to the trial Court for a finding.4. On remand, the trial Court took evidence and after local inspection, made a finding that the two houses proved to have been built by the tenant must be regarded as permanent in relation to the locality of the plot. He, however, found that there was no evidence to show when the said houses were constructed. Part of the finding was challenged by the tenant before the lower appellant Court. The lower appellate Court ultimately allowed the appeal and set aside the decree passed by the trial Judge in favour of the appellant. The conclusion of the lower appellate Court was that the two houses had been constructed by the tenant within five years after the taking of the lease and that entitled the lessee to claim the benefit of S. 5 of the Act.5. The appellant then preferred a second appeal in the High Court of Assam (No. 86/ 1958). Following its earlier decision about the applicability of the provisions of S. 5 to pending proceedings, the High Court summarily dismissed the said appeal. Thereafter, the appellant applied for and obtained a certificate from the High Court and with the said certificate the present appeal has been brought before us. Pending these proceedings, the tenant Cheri died and his heirs and legal representatives Mst. Tulsa Devi and others have been brought on the record and will be described as respondents hereafter.

Court's reasoning:
Now, S. 5 itself gives an unmistakable indication of the legislative intention to make its provisions retrospective. What does S. 5 provide? It provides protection to the tenants who have actually built within five years from the date of leases executed in their favour, permanent structures on the land let out to them for residential or business purposes and this protection is available either when the construction of the permanent structure has been made by the tenant in pursuance of the terms of the lease, or even without any term of that kind and the landlord had knowledge of it and had acquiesced in it. Thus, the plain object of S. 5 is to protect the tenants who have built a permanent structure either for business or for residence provided it has been built within 5 years from the date of contract of tenancy. Therefore, cases where permanent structures had been built within 5 years of the terms of contract would fall within S. 5(1) (a), even though those constructions had been made before the date of the Act. Thus, the very scheme of S. 5(1)(a) clearly postulates the extension of its protection to constructions already made.There is yet another point which is relevant in this connection. Section 5(1)(a) provides that the tenant shall not be evicted by the landlord from the tenancy except on the ground of non-payment of rent provided of course the conditions prescribed by it are satisfied. If the legislature had intended that this protection should operate prospectively, it would have been easy to say that the tenant shall not be sued in ejectment; such an expression would have indicated that the protection is afforded to the suits brought after the Act came into force and that might have introduced the element of prospective operation; instead, what is prohibited by S. 5 (1) (a) is the eviction of the tenant, and so, inevitably, the section must come into play for the protection of the tenant even at the appellate stage when it is clear that by the proceedings pending before the appellate court, the landlord is seeking to evict the tenant, and that obviously indicates that the pending proceedings are governed by S. 5 (1) (a) though they may have been initially instituted before the Act came into force.Incidentally, an appeal pending before the lower appellate court is a continuation of the suit, and so, there is no difficulty in holding that a suit which was pending when the Act came into force would be governed by S. 5(1) (a) and in appeal arising from a suit which had been decided before the Act came into force, would likewise be governed by S. 5(1) (a) provided it is pending after the date when the Act came into force. Therefore, we are satisfied that the Assam High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the dispute between the parties in the present case must be governed by the provisions of S. 5 (1) (a). It is common ground that if S. 5(1)(a) is held to apply, the decrees passed against the appellants in both the appeals cannot be successfully challenged.