Judgment Case ID: 1943

Judgment:
Appeals Nos. 48 to 53 of 1963. Appeals from the judgment and decrees dated May 3	 1960	 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeals Nos. 215	 67	 82 & 216 of 1958. W. section Barlingay	 section section Khanduja and Ganpat Rai	 for the appellants (in all the appeals). G. section Pathak and D. N. Mukherjee	 for the respondent (in all the appeals). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar	 C.J. The short question which these six ap peals raise relates to the construction of section 30(c) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act	 1949 (W.B. Act No. 11 of 1949) (hereinafter called 'the Act '). This question arises in this way. The respondent Sanat Kumar Ganguli is the owner of a plot of land being premises No. 12	 Haldar Lane	 in Central Calcutta This plot had been let out in several lots to the predecessors in title of the six appellants. 366 On July 24	 1954	 the respondent filed six suits Nos. 2240 to 2245 of 1954 against the six appellants respectively on the original side of the Calcutta High Court	 claiming decrees for ejectment against them and asking for arrears of ground rent and Municipal taxes. The appellants contested the respondent 's claim on the ground that the lands in suits had been taken by their predecessors in title from the owner as Thika tenants in or about the year 1900	 and they alleged that they were in occupation of the said plots after having built substantial structures on them. The appellants further claimed that they had themselves let out portions of such structures to their own tenants. On these allegations	 a preliminary objection to the competence of the suits was raised by the appellants on the ground that under section 5 of the Act	 claim for ejectment of Thika tenants can be entertained only by the Controller	 and so	 the learned Judge on the original side of the Calcutta High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it. The respondent admitted that the appellants were Thika tenants and did not dispute that normally	 a claim for ejecting such Thika tenants could be tried only by the Controller; but he urged that the present suits fell within the scope of section 30(c) of the Act and in consequence	 the provisions of section 5 and indeed. 	 all other relevant provisions of the Act did not apply to them. That is how the respondent sought to meet the preliminary objection raised by the appellants. In appreciating the nature of the controversy thus raised by the pleadings	 it is necessary to mention some more facts. On February 9	 1940 a notice was issued by the Chairman of the Calcutta Improvement Trust under section 43 of the Calcutta Improvement Act	 1911 (Bengal Act V of 191 1) as amended up to 193 1. This Act will hereafter be called 'the Improvement Act '. This notice shows that a scheme bearing No. 53 had been framed for the purpose of improvement of Calcutta by a street scheme in Ward No. 10 of the Calcutta Municipality for an area the boundaries whereof were described in the said notice. This notice gave the particulars of the scheme and was accompanied by a map of the area comprised in the scheme. It also contained the statement of the land which it was proposed to acquire as well as land on which betterment fee was proposed to be levied. These plans were open for inspection at the office of the Trust at No. 5	 Clive Street	 Calcutta. Along with this notice	 another notice was published which gave a list of properties proposed to be acquired under the scheme and contained a statement of the land in regard to which betterment fees were proposed to be levied. Premises No. 12	 Haldar Lane	 were included in the latter category of lands. In July 1952	 proceedings were started for settling the betterment fee to be levied in respect of premises No. 12	 Haldar Lane	 and a letter was addressed by the Chief Valuer of the Calcutta 367 Improvement Trust to the respondent on November 19	 1952. This letter shows that the Chief Valuer had not received a reply from the respondent	 though his advocate had accepted the assessment of betterment fee of Rs. 15	000 in the Land Committee meeting which had been held on August 7	 1952 and confirmed by the Board on August 30	 1952. On November 19	 1952	 however	 the respondent recorded in writing that he accepted the said assessment. The respondent 's case before 'he learned trial Judge was that since betterment fee had been levied by the Board in respect of the suit premises and had been accepted by him	 section 30(c) of the Act applied to the present suits. Section 30(c) provides that "nothing in the Act shall apply to any land which is required for carrying out any of the provisions of the Calcutta Improvement Act	 191 1. " That is how the respondent sought to repel the application of section 5 of the Act and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Controller to deal with ejectment proceedings in respect of thika tenants ' holdings. The learned trial Judge held that the plots constituting the land in the six respective suits did not attract the provisions of section 30(c) of the Act	 and so	 he upheld the preliminary objection raised by the appellants and came to the conclusion that the suits filed by the respondent on the original side of the Calcutta High Court were incompetent and could not be entertained. In the result	 the said suits were ordered to be dismissed with costs. The respondent challenged these decrees by preferring six appeals before a Division Bench of the High Court. The learned Judges who heard these appeals have delivered separate	 but concurring	 judgments and have upheld the respondent 's argument that the land in suits attracted the provisions of section 30(c) of the Act	 with the result that the preliminary objection raised by the appellants has been rejected. Once the preliminary objection was rejected	 it was plain that no other point survived	 because the appellants had no defence to make on the merits of the respondent 's claim. That is why the appeals were allowed and decrees	 for possession were passed in favour of the respondent. The claim made by the respondent in respect of arrears of round rent and municipal taxes was also allowed. It is against these decrees that the appellants have come to this Court with certificates granted by the High Court; and so	 the only question which arises for our decision is whether the Division Bench was right in holding that section 30(c) of the Act applied to the present suits. The answer to this Question depends on a fair construction of the provision prescribed by section 30(c). Before dealing with this question	 it is necessary to refer to the material provisions of the Act. The Act was passed in 1949 with the object of making better provision relating to the law of landlord and tenant in respect of thika tenancies in Calcutta. Section 2(5) in Chapter 1 defines a "thika tenant" as meaning any person who holds	 whether under a written lease or otherwise	 land under another person	 and is or but for a special contract would be liable 368 to pay rent	 at a monthly or at any other periodical rate	 for that land to that another person and has erected or acquired by purchase or gift any structure on such land for a residential	 manufacturing or business purpose and includes the successors in interest (if such person. Sub clauses (a)	 (b) and (c) of this definition exclude from its purview certain other categories of persons	 but we are not concerned with these categories of persons in the present appeals. It is common ground that the appellants are thika tenants in respect of the plots in their possession. Chapter 11 of the Act deals with incidents of thika tenancies. Broadly stated	 the object of the Act is to afford special protection to the thika tenants and several provisions have been enacted by the Act to carry out this object. Section 3 specifies the grounds on which alone a thika tenant may be evicted. Section 4 prescribes a notice before ejectment proceedings can be taken against a thika tenant; and section 5 provides for proceedings for ejectment. The important feature of the provisions contained in section 5(1) is that the application for ejectment of a thika tenant has to be made to the Controller in the prescribed manner. The "controller" is defined by section 2(2) as meaning an officer appointed as such by the State Government for an area to which the Act extends and includes officers of another category therein described. The remaining provisions of Ch. 11 deal with the procedure which has to be followed by the Controller in dealing with applications for ejectment of thika tenants and make other incidental provisions in that behalf. The policy of the Act to afford protection to the thika tenants is writ large in all these provisions. Chapter III contains provisions as to rent of thika tenancies. Chapter IV deals with appeals and certain special procedures. Section 27(1)	 for instance	 provides for appeals to the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes of Calcutta and District Judge respectively under clauses (a) and (b). Section 27(6) provides that an order made under sub section (4) by the Chief Judge or the District Judge or a person appointed under sub section (2)	 as the case may be	 or	 subject to such order	 if any	 an order made by the Controller under this Act shall	 subject to the provisions of sub section (5) be final and may be executed by the Controller in the manner provided in the Code of Civil Procedure for the execution of decrees. It is thus clear that the Act has made special provisions for the enforcement of the rights and liabilities of the thika tenants	 has constituted hierarchy of special authorities to deal with claims made by landlords against their thika tenants	 either in the first instance or at the appellate stage. The decisions of these special authorities which become final are assimilated to decrees passed under the Code of Civil Procedure and can be executed in the manner prescribed by 0.21 of the Code. Section 31 provides that restriction or exclusion of the Act by agreement between a landlord and a thika tenant will be invalid	 369 and will not affect the rights conferred on the thika tenants by the provisions of the Act. It is in the light of these provisions that we have to construe section 30 of the Act. Section 30 reads thus: "Nothing in this Act shall apply to (a) Government lands	 (b) any land vested in or in the possession of (i) the State Government	 (ii) a port authority of a major port	 or (iii) a railway administration	 or (iv) a local authority	 or (c) any land which is required for carrying out any of the provisions of the Calcutta Improvement Act	 1911. " The perusal of section 301 clearly shows that the provisions of the Act are excluded in regard to lands specified in clauses (a)	 (b) and (c)	 so that claims made for ejectment of thika tenants from these lands will not be governed by the provisions of the Act and can be made and entertained in ordinary civil courts of competent jurisdiction. The question which we have to consider in the present appeals is whether the land which is the subject matter of the six suits is land which is required for carrying out any of the provisions of the Improvement Act. That takes us to the relevant provisions of the Improvement Act itself. The Improvement Act was passed in 1911 and has been amended from time to time. Let us consider broadly the material provisions of this Act	 as they stood prior to the amendment of 1955	 which would assist us in construing section 30(c) of the Act. This Act was passed	 because it was thought expedient to make provision for the improvement and expansion of Calcutta by opening up congested areas	 laying out or altering streets	 providing open spaces for purposes of ventilation or recreation	 demolishing or constructing buildings	 acquiring land for the said purposes 		]Id for the rehousing of persons of the poorer and working classes displaced by the execution of improvement schemes	 and otherwise as hereinafter appearing. It was further thought expedient to constitute a Board of Trustees and invest it with special powers for carrying out the objects of this Act. Section 2(1a) of this Act defines a "betterment fee" as the fee prescribed by section 78A in respect of an increase in value of land resulting from the execution of an improvement scheme. Chapter III of this Act deals with improvement schemes and re housing schemes. Section 36 provides when general improvement schemes may be framed. It is only where the conditions specified by clauses (a) & (b) of section 36 are satisfied that general schemes can be framed. Under this section	 the Board has to pass 370 a resolution to the effect that the general improvement scheme should be framed on the ground that the area comprised in the scheme is an unhealthy area and that it was necessary to frame a general improvement scheme in respect of such area. Section 40 deals with matters which have to be considered while framing improvement schemes. It provides that when framing an improvement scheme in respect of any area	 regard shall be had to (a) the nature and the conditions of neighboring areas and of Calcutta as a whole 	 (b) the several directions in which the expansion of Calcutta appears likely to take place 	 and (c) the likelihood of improvement schemes being required for other parts of Calcutta. Section 41 deals with matters which must be provided for in improvement schemes; it reads thus: "Every improvement scheme shall provide for (a) the acquisition by the Board of any land	 in the area comprised in the scheme	 which will	 in their opinion be required for the execution of the scheme	 (b) the laying out or re laying out of the land in the said area; (c) such demolition	 alteration or reconstruction of buildings	 situated on land which it is proposed to acquire in the said area	 as the Board may think necessary; (d) the construction of any buildings which the Board may consider it necessary to erect for any purpose other than sale or hire; (e) the laying out or alteration of streets (including bridges	 causeways and culverts)	 if required; and (f) the leveling	 paving	 metalling	 flagging	 channelling	 sewering and draining of the said streets	 and the provision therein of water	 lighting and other sanitary conveniences ordinarily provided in a Municipality. " Section 42 deals with matters which may be provided for in dealing with improvement schemes. It is necessary to read this section as well: "Any improvement scheme may provide for (a) the acquisition by the Board of any land	 in the area comprised in the scheme which will	 in their opinion	 be affected by the execution of the scheme 	 (b) raising	 lowering or leveling any land in the area comprised in the scheme; 371 (c) the formation or retention of open spaces . and (d) any other matters	 consistent with this Act	 which the Board may think fit." Under section 47	 the Board is required to consider objections	 representations and statements of dissent received under the relevant provisions of sections 43	 44 and 45; and it provides that as a consequence of considering the said objections	 representations and statements of dissent	 the Board may either abandon the scheme or apply to the State Government for sanction to the scheme	 with such modifications	 if any	 as the Board may consider necessary. Section 47(2)(e) lays down that every application submitted under sub section (1) shall be accompanied by a list of the names of all persons	 if any	 who have dissented	 under section 45	 clause (b)	 from the proposed acquisition of their land or from the proposed recovery of a betterment fee	 and a statement of the reasons given for such dissent. The rest of the Chapter deals with the subsequent stages of the framing of the improvement schemes to which it is unnecessary to refer. Chapter IV deals with acquisition and disposal of land. Three sections out of this Chapter are relevant for our purpose. Section 78 deals with the abandonment of acquisition in consideration of special payment. Section 78(1) is relevant; it reads thus: "In any case in which the State Government has sanctioned the acquisition of land	 in any area comprised in an improvement scheme	 which is not required for the execution of the scheme	 the owner of the land	 or any person having an interest therein	 may make an application to the Board	 requesting that the acquisition of the land should be abandoned in consideration of the payment by him of a sum to be fixed by the Board in that behalf. " The other sub sections of section 78 lay down a procedure for dealing with applications made under sub section With the details of these provisions we are not concerned. The only point which is relevant for our purpose is that an application for abandonment can be made in respect of land which is not required for the execution of the scheme. In other words	 if it appears that the piece of land which is comprised in the scheme already sanctioned by the Government is in fact not required for the execution of the scheme	 an application may be made for abandonment of acquisition in respect of such a land. The basis for making such an application is that though the land was comprised in the scheme	 it is found that it is not required for the execution of the scheme		 That takes us to section 78A which has a bearing on the construction of section 30(c) of the Act. Section 78A(1) is material for our purpose; it reads thus "When by the making of any improvement scheme	 any land in the area comprised in the scheme which is not B(N)3SCI 11 372 required for the execution thereof will	 in the opinion of the Board	 be increased in value	 the Board	 in framing the scheme	 may in lieu of providing for the acquisition of such land	 declare that a betterment fee shall be payable by the owner of the land or any person having an interest therein in respect of the increase in value of the land resulting from the execution of the scheme." Section 78A(2) provides for the determination and calculation of the betterment fee. The last section in this Chapter is section 81. It confers power on the Board to dispose of land vested in or acquired by their under this Act. Section 81(1) lays down that the Board may retain	 or may let on hire	 lease	 sell	 exchange or otherwise dispose of any land vested in or acquired by them under this Act. How this power can be exercised is specified by sub sections (2) and (3) of section 81 Before we part with the Improvement Act	 it would be useful to mention that sections 120 to 126 which occur in Ch. VI of this Act deal with the accounts of the Board. Section 122 provides for credits to capital account and lays down	 inter alia	 that all sums	 except interest	 received by way of special payments for betterment fees in pursuance of sections 78	 78A or 79	 shall be credited to the capital account. Section 123 deals with the question of the application of the capital account	 and it proceeds on the basis that the moneys credited to the capital account shall be held by the Board in trust	 and by clauses (a) to (h)	 it specifies the objects or purposes for which the said amount can be applied. Section 124 refers to items which have to be included in the revenue account; and section 125 requires that like the moneys credited to the capital account	 those credited to the revenue account must also be held by the Board in trust	 and the same shall be applied for the purposes specified in clauses (a) to (g) of section 125(1). Let us now revert to the question about the construction of section 30(c) of the Act. Before answering this question	 we would like to recall the material facts which are not in dispute. The land if question has been included in the boundaries of the area comprised in the scheme. After the Board framed scheme No. 53	 it has issued a notice under section 43(1) of the Improvement Act	 and as required by section 43(7)(b)	 while mentioning the boundaries of the area com prised in the scheme	 it has clearly been shown that the laid in question is comprised in the said scheme. In respect of this land	 proceedings have been taken under section 78A of the Improvement Act and betterment fee has been levied and accepted. Mr. Pathak for the respondent contends that as soon as it is shown that the land in question was comprised in the scheme and in respect of it betterment fee has been levied and accepted	 section 30(c) of the Act is attracted. His argument is that such a land is required for carrying out the provisions of the Improvement Act. On the 373 other hand	 Dr. Barlinge contends that the land in respect of which betterment fee has been levied cannot be said to be required for carrying out any provisions of the Improvement Act	 though it may be that the betterment fee would assist the Board in discharging its functions under the Improvement Act. In deciding the merits of these competing claims	 it is necessary to remember that the dispute in the present proceedings is not between the Board on the one hand and the landlord or the thika tenant on the other '	 the dispute is between the landlord and the thika tenants	 and in the decision of this dispute	 the Board is not interested. Whatever be the decision of the Court in the present dispute will not affect the Board in the discharge of its duties and functions and will have no impact on the scheme as such. The words used in section 30(c) of the Act are	 in a sense	 simple enough; but it must be conceded that the problem of their construction is not very easy	 and so	 we might attempt to resolve this problem by considering what our approach should be in construing the relevant provision. Normally	 the words used in a statute have to be construed in their ordinary meaning; but in many cases	 judicial approach finds that the simple device of adopting the ordinary meaning of words does not meet the ends or a fair and a reasonable construction. Exclusive reliance on the bare dictionary meaning of words may not necessarily assist a proper construction of the statutory provision in which the words occur. Often enough	 in interpreting a statutory provision	 it becomes necessary to have regard to the subject matter of the statute and the object which it is intended to achieve. That is why in deciding the true scope and effect of the relevant words in any statutory provision	 the context in which the words occur	 the object of the statute in which the provision is included	 and the policy underlying the statute assume relevance and become material. As Halsbury has observed	 the words "should be construed in the light of their context rather than what may be either strict etymological sense or their popular meaning apart from that context(1)". This position is not disputed before us by either party. There has	 however	 been a sharp controversy before us on the question as to what is the context to which recourse should be had in interpreting section 30(c). Mr. Pathak contends that in construing section 30(c) of the Act	 the key words are "required for carrying out any of the provisions of the Improvement Act"	 and he has urged that the task of interpretation of this key clause should he attempted by having re. lard to the context	 the object and the policy of the Improvement Act. In interpreting this clause	 the court should ask itself: what is the purpose of the provisions of the Improvement Act which the land is required to serve	 before section 30(c) of the Act can be invoked? And in finding an answer to this question	 the court must bear in mind the historical evolution of the legal (1) Halabury 's Laws of England Vol. 36	 p. 394	 para 593. 374 principles relating to the powers and functions of Improvement Boards. In this connection Mr. Pathak has relied on the decision of the House of Lords in R. H. Galloway vs The Mayor and Commonality of London(1). In that case a contrast was drawn between the special powers conferred on persons by Parliament for effecting a particular purpose	 and those conferred on the Mayor and Commonality of the City of London to make certain public improvements in the City. It was held that where a company was authorised to take compulsorily the lands of any person for a definite object	 it would be restrained by injunction from any attempt to take them for any other object. On the other hand	 where the Mayor and Commonalty of the City of London had been entrusted with powers to make certain public improvements in the City	 and for that purpose had been authorised compulsorily to take land	 to raise money on the credit of it	 and to sell superfleous land to pay off the debt	 the Act which gave them those powers did not expressly center on the authorities to acquire more land than was absolutely necessary to effect the desired improvements; nevertheless the material provisions of the said Act ought to be construed favorably to them	 and ought to be interpreted to confer on them the power to take lands "for the purposes of the Act"	 even though they may not be abso lutely necessary for the improvement scheme as such. In other words	 this decision shows that where the Board is entrusted with the work of improving the City and is constituted for that purpose by a statute	 its power to acquire lands for the purpose of the improvement scheme would include the power to acquire a land which is comprised in the scheme	 though it may not be absolutely necessary for the scheme as such; and in such a case	 it would be compe tent to the Board first to acquire the land and then to dispose of it	 thereby putting itself in possession of the necessary funds to discharge its functions and obligations. The same principle has been emphasised by the Privy Council in the Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta vs Chandra Kanta Ghosh (2). We have already referred to sections 41 and 42 of the Improvement Act. Section 41 enumerates matters which must be provided for in the improvement schemes	 whereas section 42 deals with matters which may be provided for in the improvement schemes. Section 42(a) lays down that any improvement scheme may provide for the acquisition by the Board of any land	 in the area comprised in the scheme	 which will	 in their opinion	 be affected by the execution of the scheme. The question which arose before the Privy Council in the case of the Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta(1) was whether under section 42(a)	 it was competent to the Board to acquire	 for the purpose of recoupment	 land which is not required for the execution of the scheme	 but the trustees are of opinion that the said land would	 by virtue of the scheme	 be increased in value. The (1) [1866] 1 Eng & Ir A.C. 34. (2) [1919] L.R. 47 I.A. 45. 375 decision of this question depended	 inter alia	 on the meaning of the word "affected" used in section 42(a). The argument which was urged before the Privy Council was that in order that land can be acquired by the Board under section 42(a)	 it must appear that the land falls in the area comprised in the scheme and would be affected by the execution of the scheme. If the land does not become a part of the scheme itself but remains outside the scheme	 it cannot be said to be affected by the scheme; and so	 the Board may have no power to acquire it avowedly for the purpose of securing recoupment money. The Privy Council rejected this contention and held that the Board was empowered to acquire land which is comprised in the scheme and would be competent to sell it and thereby raise funds if it is satisfied that the value of the land will be enhanced by virtue of the scheme. "There would appear to be nothing"	 said Lord Parmoor speaking for the Board	 "either in the general scheme of the Act or in the special context which is inconsistent with giving the word "affected" its ordinary and normal sense; but it was suggested in the argument on behalf of the respondent that the Act did not authorise the Board to acquire land unless it was either physically affected by the execution of the scheme	 or injuriously affected	 whether by severance or in some other manner" (p. 54). In rejecting this argument	 Lord Parmoor observed that "in the opinion of their Lordships	 none of the suggested limitations to the usual and normal meaning of the word "affected" in section 42 are admissible	 and that there is no reason	 either in the general purpose of the Act or the special context	 that the word should not be construed in its ordinary sense	 and that	 as so construed	 section 42 authorises the acquisition of the land of the respondent	 which was inserted in the scheme	 because in the opinion of the Board	 it would be enhanced in value by its execution". Section 78 and section 78A which has been inserted in the Improvement Act in 19 3 1	 in a sense give statutory recognition to the principle evolved by the Privy Council while interpreting section 42 of the Improvement Act. Basing himself on this aspect of the matter	 Mr. Pathak con tends that where a land is comprised in the improvement scheme originally notified and betterment fee is levied later in respect of it under section 78A	 the Board can be deemed to have taken two steps		 it may be said that the Board acquired the land and later	 sold it to the owner on the terms and conditions authorised by section 78A. In other words	 the argument is that the levy of betterment fee is another way of bringing the land within the purview of the improvement scheme and it is	 in fact	 an alternative way of acquiring it. If that is so	 section 30(c) which obviously includes lands acquired for the purposes of the scheme	 cannot be said to exclude land which is not directly acquired	 but is indirectly placed in the same category of lands	 because recovery of the recoupment fee is one way of acquiring the land. It is on these grounds that Mr. Pathak has strenuously contended that the key clause in section 30(c) should receive a liberal 376 construction and the land in question in the present proceedings should be held to be required for carrying out the relevant provisions of the Improvement Act. On the other hand	 Dr. Balinge has emphasised the fact that the section which we are construing occurs in the Thika Tenancy Act and it is the context of this Act as well as the object which it seeks to achieve that are relevant and material. There is no doubt that the provisions of the Act are intended to serve the purpose of social justice. The Legislature realised that the relations between the landlord and the tenants in respect of holdings let out to thika tenants under the Act needed to be regulated by statute and it thought that thika tenants deserved some special protection. The Act is thus a measure which can be described as social welfare measure	 and so	 the argument is that section 30 which provides for an exception to the material provisions of the Act	 should be strictly construed	 so that the beneficent purpose of the Act should not be unduly narrowed down or restricted. In construing section 30(e)	 it would	 therefore	 be relevant to remember whether it could not have been the intention of the Legislature to permit a private land holder whose land has not been acquired and does not form part of the improvement scheme	 to claim immunity from the application of the relevant provisions of the Act which give protection to the thika tenants; and so	 Dr. Barlinge 's contention is that it would be unreasonable to introduce a liberal approach in construing the clause "required for carrying out any of the provisions of the Improvement Act" as suggested by Mr. Pathak. In our opinion	 while construing section 30(c) it would be necessary to bear in mind the context of the Act in which the section occurs. We have already noticed the broad features of the Act	 and the object of the Act to help the thika tenants is writ large in all the material provisions. In the case of such a statute	 if an exception is provided	 the provision prescribing the exception and creating a bar to the application of the Act to certain cases must	 we think	 be strictly construed. Take the other clauses of section 30: they clearly indicate that it is only lands vested in Government or other special bodies or authorities that are excepted from the application of the Act. Prima facie	 it is not easy to assume that a private land] 	older like the respondent would be within the protection of section 30	 because there is no consideration in his case. as in the case of other authorities or bodies covered by clauses (a) and (b) of section 30	 which would justify the exclusion of the Act to 'his case. That is one aspect of the matter which we cannot ignore. That takes us to the crux of the problem: can the land in question be said to be required for carrying out any of the provisions of the Improvement Act? It is significant that it is the land which must be required	 and not any fee or charges that may be levied against it. What section 30(c) of the Act seems to require is direct 377 connection between the land as such and the requirements of the provisions of the Improvement Act. The other ingredient of section 30(c) is that the land must be required for carrying out the provisions of the Improvement Act. In the context	 this second ingredient of the section seems to suggest that the land must be necessary for carrying out the provisions as such of the Improvement Act; in other words	 we should be able to say about the land in question that it was necessary for carrying out a particular provision of the Improvement Act. The third and the last ingredient of s.30(c) is that the necessity must be established for carrying out the provisions of the Improvement Act and not the policy of the said provisions or the object which they are intended to achieve. Having regard to these ingredients of section 30(c)	 the question which calls for an answer is it shown that the land in question is necessary to carry out any specific provision of the Improvement Act '? It is difficult to answer this question in favour of the respondent. It is true that the betterment fee which is levied goes to constitute an important item in the capital account under section 122 of the Improvement Act. It is also true that the Board 'has the power to levy betterment fee in order that it should secure enough funds to carry out its obligations under the Improvement Act. Such a power has always vested in the Board and has now been statutorily conferred on it by section 78A. Under section 81	 the Board can acquire more land than is absolutely necessary for the purpose of the scheme as such	 and may later dispose of superfluous land. The existence of these powers cannot be disputed. But would it be consistent with the fair construction of section 30(c) to hold that because the land in question can be made liable to pay betterment fee and the betterment fee thus realised from the land serves the purpose of section 122 of the Improvement Act	 the land itself is required for carrying	 out the provisions of section 122? In order that section 30(c) should be applicable	 the respondent must point out a specific provision of the Improvement Act for the carrying out of which the land as such is required. The provisions of section 122 of the Improvement Act do not he help the respondent	 because it is not possible to bold that for carrying out the provisions of section 122	 the land in question is directly required. There is another aspect of the question to which we ought to refer Section 78A	 like section 78	 deals with lands which in terms are not required for the execution of the scheme. These two sections provide for two categories of lands	 both of which were originally comprised in the scheme	 but are later found to be not required for the scheme. Now	 when section 78A expressly says that the and in respect of which betterment fee can be levied	 is not required for the scheme	 it is not easy to accept the argument that such a land is nevertheless required for carrying out the provisions of section 78A. In construing section 30(c)	 it is necessary to distinguish between the carrying		 out the provisions of the Improvement Act	 and the achieve 378 ment or the accomplishment of the objects of the said provisions. In one sense	 the land in question does serve the purpose of the Improvement scheme	 because the betterment fee which is levied on it swells the funds of the Board and the funds are utilised by the Board for the purposes of carrying out the scheme; but the requirement of the land for carrying out the provisions of the Improvement Act which alone can invoke section 30(c)	 cannot be said to be satisfied by this indirect connection between the land and the general purpose of the Improvement Act. There is one more aspect of this problem which is not irrelevant. Betterment fee is levied against a land	 because its value is increased as a result of the improvement scheme	 and so	 section 78A authorises the Board to levy betterment fee presumably on the ground that the Board is justified in recouping itself by such levy in respect of unearned increment in the value of the land of which the land holder gets a benefit. If the land holder pays betterment fee for such unearned increment in the value of the land	 he may apply under section 25 of the Act for enhancing the rent payable by the thika tenants to him. But there appears to be no reason why a landlord	 the value of whose land has increased by the improvement scheme introduced in the area in which his land is situated	 should get the additional benefit of exemption from the application of the provisions of the Act which give protection to the tenants. Having carefully considered the question of construing s.30(c)	 we have come to the conclusion that the words used in section 30(c) do not justify the conclusion that a private landholder is intended to be equated with Government or with the other special bodies or authorities whose lands are exempted from the operation of the Act by section 30. We do not think that the Legislature intended that the provisions of the Act should cease to apply to all lands which ore comprised in the scheme	 because such a provision would appear to be inconsistent with the categories of cases covered by clauses (a) & (b) of section 30. Besides	 if that was the intention of the Legislature in enacting section 30(c)	 it would have been easy for the Legislature to say that lands comprised in the improvement schemes should be exempted from the application of the Act. Section 30	 as we already emphasised	 provides for an exception to the application of the beneficent provisions of the Act	 and it would	 we think. not be unreasonable to bold that even if section 30(c) is reasonably capable of the construction for which Mr. Pathak contends	 we should prefer the alternative construction which is also reasonably possible. In construing the provisions which provide for exceptions to the applicability of beneficent legislation	 if two constructions are reasonably possible	 the Court would be justified in preferring that construction which helps to carry out the beneficent purpose of the Act and does not unduly expand the area or the scope of the exception. Therefore	 we are satisfied that the Court of Appeal was in error in 379 reversing the conclusion of the trial Judge that the present suits filed on the original side of the Calcutta High Court were incompetent. There is	 however	 one more point to which we ought to refer before we part with these appeals. Both the learned Judges in the Court of Appeal have observed that if section 30(c) is held not to apply to the land in question on the ground that it is not required for carrying out any of the provisions of the Improvement Act	 section 30(c) would	 in substance	 become redundant. The argument which was thus urged before the Court of Appeal and has been accepted by it. assumes that the Board is a local authority within the meaning of 30(b)(iv) and as such	 the land which has vested in the Board is already excepted from the operation of the Act by the said provision; and that means that the lands acquired by the Board under the provisions of the Improvement Act have already been provided for by section 30(b)(iv). If that is so	 there would be no cases to which section 30(c) can apply. Since this point arises incidentally in construing section 30(c)	 we do not propose to decide in the present appeals whether the Board is a local authority within the meaning of section 30(b)(iv). In dealing with this particular argument	 however	 we are prepared to assume that the Board is such a local authority. Even so	 it is possible to hold that section 30(c) does not become redundant	 because though section 30(b)(iv) may include lands acquired by the Board	 there may still be some other lands which are not acquired by the Board but which	 nevertheless	 may be required for carrying out some provisions of the Improvement Act. Take	 for instance	 section 42 of the Improvement Act. Section 42(b) lays down that any improvement scheme may provide for raising	 lowering	 or levelling any land in the area comprised in the scheme. Section 42(c) provides for the formation and retention of open spaces. Similar provisions are made by section 35C(1)(i) and (j) as introduced by the Amending Act 32 of 1955. It is possible to take the view that the lands required for the purposes specified in these provisions of section 42 or section 35C of the Improvement Act are required within the meaning of section 30(c) of the Act	 though they may not have been acquired. But apart from this consideration	 the argument that section 30(c) would become redundant cannot	 we think	 be treated as decisive	 because it is not unknown that the Legislature sometimes makes provisions out of abundant caution. When section 30(c) was enacted in 1949	 the Legislature may have thought that in order to avoid any doubt	 dispute or difficulty in regard to the question as to whether the Board would be a local	 authority or not	 it would be better to make a specific provision in respect of lands which are acquired by the Board as well as those which would be required for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Improvement Act. It is true that the lands which are required within the meaning of section 30(c) would include lands which are actually acquired as well as those which might not have been acquired but are	 nevertheless	 required for carrying out the provisions of the Improvement Act. But having specified respective 380 authorities or bodies in clause (a) & (b) of section 30	 the Legislature may have thought that it would be better to refer to the Improvement Act and lands required for carrying out its provisions	 specifically and expressly. Having regard to the considerations on which our interpretation of section 30(c) is based	 we are not prepared to attach undue significance to the argument based on the assumption that the Board is a local authority within the meaning of section 30(b)(iv) and that would make the provisions of section 30(c) either superfluous or would deprive the said provision of any significance or importance. The result is	 the appeals are allowed	 the decrees passed by the Division Bench are set aside and those of the trial Judge restored with costs throughout. Appeals allowed.

Summary:
The appellants were thika tenants under the respondent in respect of the suit land. Under the Calcutta Improvement Trust Act	 1911	 a scheme had been framed for improvement of an area within which the suit land was situate and the suit land was shown among the properties	 in regard to which betterment fees were proposed to be levied. The respondent accepted the betterment fee assessed and levied under section 78A of the Act. Thereafter	 he filed suits for the ejectment of the appellants. The suits were dismissed as not maintainable because of section 5 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act	 1949	 under which an application for the ejectment of a thika tenant could be filed only before the Controller under that Act. On appeal	 it was held	 that the suits were governed by the provisions of section 30(c) of the Thika Tenancy Act	 under which	 nothing in the Act applied to any land which was required for carrying out any of the provisions of the Improvement Trust Act	 and therefore	 the appeals were allowed. In the appeal to this Court by the tenants on the question as to whether section 30(c) applied to the suits; HELD: Because the land was liable to pay betterment fee and the fee thus realised served the purpose of section 122 of the Improvement Trust Act by swelling the funds of the Improvement Trust Board and such fund could be utilised by the Board for the purposes of carrying out the scheme	 it cannot be said that the land itself was required for carrying out the provisions of the improvement Trust Act. The requirement of section 30(c) of the Thika Tenancy Act could not be said to be satisfied by such an indirect connection between the land and the general purpose of the Improvement Trust Act. [378 A B] In construing the words of a statute the context in which the words occur	 the object of the statute in which the provision is included and the policy underlying the statute assume relevance and become material. [373 F] In the instant case	 the object of the Thika Tenancy Act to help thika tenants is writ large in all the material provisions of the Act In construing section 30	 which provides for an exception to the applicability of beneficent legislation	 if two constructions are reasonably possible	 the Court would be justified in preferring that construction which helps to carry out the beneficent purpose of the Act and does not unduly expand the area or the scope of the exception	 that is	 the exception must be strictly construed. Under the section	 it is the land which must be required and not any fee or charges that may be levied against it. Further	 there must be a direct connection between the land as such and the requirements of the provisions of the improvement Trust Act	 and not with the policy of the provisions or the object which they are intended to achieve. In order that section 30(c) should be applicable	 the respondent must point 365 out a specific provision of the Improvement Trust Act for the carrying out of which the land as such was required. Section of that Act would not help the respondent	 because	 it would not be possible to hold that for carrying out its provisions the land was directly required. H 377 C	 G; 378 H] Moreover	 when section 78A of the Improvement Trust Act	 expressly says that the land in respect of which betterment fee can be levied	 is	 not required for the scheme	 the argument that such a land is	 nevertheless	 required for carrying out the provision of section 78A	 cannot be accepted. [377 H] Betterment fee is levied against a land	 because its value is increased as a result of the improvement scheme and the Board is justified in recouping itself by such levy in respect of the unearned increment in the value of the land	 and	 if the landholder pays the fee	 he may apply under section 25 of the Improvement Trust Act for an enhancement of the rent payable by the tenants; but there is no reason why such a landlord should get the additional benefit of exemption from the application of the provisions of the Thika Tenancy Act. Clauses (a) and (b) of section 30 of that Act indicate that it is only lands vested in Government or other special bodies or authorities that are excepted from the application of the Act. The words used in cl. (c) do not justify the conclusion that a private landholder is intended to be equated with Government or with such other special bodies or authorities. [378 C	 D	 F] Though lands acquired by the Board may be covered by section 30(b) (iv)	 on the assumption that the Board is a local authority	 section 30(c) would not become redundant if it was held not to apply to the suit land	 because	 there may still be some other lands which are not acquired by the Board but which may. nevertheless	 be required for carrying out some provisions of the Improvement Trust Act	 as for example under sections 35C and 42 of that Act. Or	 the legislature might have made	 by way of abundant caution	 a specific provision in respect of lands which are acquired by the Board as well as those which would be required for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Improvement Trust Act. [379 D H]