Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1955 (10) TMI 41

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pplication for possession under Section 29 before the Mamlatdar on 11-4-1953. The Mamlatdar granted possession, in appeal the Prant Officer confirmed the decision of the Mamlatdar, and in revision the Bombay Revenue Tribunal confirmed the order of the two lower Courts, and the matter has now come up before us on this Full Bench. 2. Now, when the notice was given on 6-3-1952 the conditions laid down in Section 34 which permitted the landlord to obtain possession from his tenant were satisfied. By the Amending Act 33 of 1952 certain further limitations were placed upon the right of the landlord to obtain possession, and when the notice terminated the tenancy on 31-3-1953 those limitations would not permit the landlord to obtain possession, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted? 3. Section 34, as the marginal note indicates deals with the landlord's right to determine a protected tenancy and Sub-section (1) provides that a landlord may terminate the tenancy of a protected tenant by giving him one year's notice in writing, stating therein the reasons for such termination, if the landlord bona fide requires the land for any of the following purposes, namely, (1) for cultivating personally, or (2) for any non-agricultural use or his own purpose. Therefore, Section 34(1) refers to a notice as the procedure by which a landlord can determine a protected tenancy. But the right to determine the protected tenancy only arises provided he is entitled to possession under the circumstances mentioned in Sectio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n possession if the tenant is refractory. Therefore the cause of action that accrues to the landlord and which he comes to Court to enforce is the right to possession and that cause of action only accrues to him when the tenancy is terminated and not when he gives notice. The vested right also that accrues to him is when the tenancy is terminated; the vested right is the right to obtain possession and till the tenancy is terminated there is no vested right in the landlord. Therefore, if the Amending Act 33 of 1952 was in any way affecting the vested right of the landlord, then clearly it could not be given a retrospective effect unless the Legislature in terms made it retrospective. But if in this case the landlord's vested right .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rom obtaining possession and evicting the tenant. Therefore, if there was a matter of doubt -- in our opinion it is not really a matter of doubt -- we should give to the Amending Act a construction which must be in favour of the tenant. 6. Mr. Patel has drawn our attention to the language or Sub-section (2)(a) of Section 34 which before it was amended by Act i2 of 1951 was in the following language: (2) Nothing in Sub-section (1) shall entitle the landlord, (a) to terminate the tenancy of a protected tenant, if the landlord at the date of the notice has been cultivating personally other land fifty acres or more in area . By Amending Act 12 of 1951 this sub-section was amended to run as follows: (2) Nothing in Sub-section (1) s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llowing the year in which the notice to quit was served upon the tenant by the landlord. An Amendment was made to this Act and the amendment came into force before the tenancy in that particular case was determined, and the question that arose before the learned Chief Justice and his two colleagues was whether the Amending Act applied or the old Act applied, and the learned Chief Justice in his judgment said that the old Act would apply and not the new Act, and the reason which the learned Chief Justice expressly gives for coming to this conclusion is that the new Act alters the nature of the notice and provides for a period of the notice which the old Act did not require and he is troubled by the fact that if the new Act was to apply all t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates