1965 (3) TMI 80 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 30(c) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949.
2. Jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court in ejectment suits against Thika tenants.
3. Applicability of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911, to the land in question.
4. Relationship between betterment fee and land acquisition under the Improvement Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Section 30(c) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949:
The primary issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 30(c) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, which states, "nothing in the Act shall apply to any land which is required for carrying out any of the provisions of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911." The Court emphasized that the words used in the statute must be construed in their ordinary meaning, considering the context, object, and policy of the statute. The Court noted that Section 30(c) should be strictly construed as it provides an exception to the beneficent provisions of the Act aimed at protecting Thika tenants.

2. Jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court in Ejectment Suits Against Thika Tenants:
The appellants argued that the Calcutta High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suits for ejectment as per Section 5 of the Thika Tenancy Act, which mandates that such claims be entertained only by the Controller. The respondent contended that Section 30(c) exempted these suits from the Act's provisions, thus allowing the High Court to have jurisdiction. The trial judge upheld the appellants' preliminary objection, ruling that the High Court had no jurisdiction, a decision later reversed by the Division Bench.

3. Applicability of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911, to the Land in Question:
The land in question was included in an improvement scheme under the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911, and a betterment fee was levied and accepted. The respondent argued that this inclusion and the levy of the betterment fee meant that the land was required for carrying out the provisions of the Improvement Act, thus invoking Section 30(c) of the Thika Tenancy Act. The Court examined the provisions of the Improvement Act, including Sections 41, 42, 78, and 78A, to determine whether the land was indeed required for carrying out the provisions of the Improvement Act.

4. Relationship Between Betterment Fee and Land Acquisition Under the Improvement Act:
The Court analyzed whether the levy of a betterment fee on the land implied that the land was required for carrying out the provisions of the Improvement Act. The Court noted that while the betterment fee contributes to the capital account and assists the Board in its functions, it does not necessarily mean that the land itself is required for carrying out the provisions of the Improvement Act. The Court distinguished between the land being required for the provisions and the fee serving the purpose of the Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the land in question was not required for carrying out any specific provision of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911, merely because a betterment fee was levied on it. The Court held that Section 30(c) of the Thika Tenancy Act did not apply, and thus, the suits filed by the respondent on the original side of the Calcutta High Court were incompetent. The Court restored the trial judge's decision, dismissing the suits with costs throughout. Appeals were allowed.