1976 (11) TMI 179 - SC - Indian Laws

Recovery of property with arrears of rent and mesne profits and damages for waste - Held that - Appeal dismissed. In the present case the provisions in section 50-A 52 and 73 of the 1964 Act as amended in 1969 were invoked by the appellant. The appellant is disentitled from doing so by reason of Chapter II of the 1964 Act not being applicable to the lease where the lessor is a Government Company. Further these sections came to effect on 1 January 1970. The sections are not retrospective but prospective in operation. The appellant is not entitled to attract these sections

Issues Involved:
1. Fixity of tenure under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964.
2. Applicability of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929.
3. Retrospective application of amendments to the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964.
4. Determination of damages and arrears of rent.
5. Jurisdiction of civil courts versus Land Tribunals.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Fixity of Tenure under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964:
The appellant contended that they were entitled to fixity of tenure under Section 3(1)(vii) of the 1964 Act as amended by Act 35 of 1969. The High Court held that only rights of persons but not fixity of tenure were saved. The appellant argued that the proviso to Section 3(1)(vii) saved both fixity of tenure and rights. However, the court found that the appellant did not have fixity of tenure on 21 January 1961 under the Malabar Tenancy Act, thus disqualifying them from claiming such benefits under the 1964 Act or its amendments. The appellant was found to be a habitual defaulter in rent payments and guilty of willful acts of waste, further disqualifying them from fixity of tenure.

2. Applicability of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929:
The appellant argued that the tenancy was governed by the Malabar Tenancy Act, and thus the suit was barred by Act 1 of 1957. The respondent countered that the tenancy was covered by an exception in Section 2(1) of the Malabar Tenancy Act VII of 1954. The trial court initially accepted the appellant's objection but was later overturned on appeal. The court found that the appellant, as a Verumpattom tenant under the Malabar Tenancy Act, was liable for eviction due to willful waste and default in rent payments.

3. Retrospective Application of Amendments to the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964:
The appellant contended that the amendments to the 1964 Act, specifically Sections 108(2) and (3) and Section 125(3), should be applied retrospectively to pending suits, appeals, and applications. The court held that these provisions were prospective and did not apply to proceedings initiated before the amendments came into effect. The court emphasized that statutes should not be construed to affect vested rights unless explicitly stated.

4. Determination of Damages and Arrears of Rent:
The trial court awarded the respondent damages amounting to Rs. 1,00,000 for certain items and Rs. 51,030 for other items. The High Court enhanced the damages to Rs. 2,20,394. The appellant argued that under Sections 50-A, 52, and 73 of the 1964 Act as amended in 1969, the maximum arrears of rent claimable was for three years. However, the court found that these provisions did not apply to leases involving government-owned companies and were not retrospective.

5. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts versus Land Tribunals:
The appellant invoked Section 125(3) of the 1964 Act, arguing that all questions regarding tenant rights should be decided by the Land Tribunal. The court held that Section 125(3) was prospective and did not apply to proceedings pending before the commencement of the Amendment Act on 1 January 1970. The court further clarified that pending proceedings were to be determined by civil courts, not Land Tribunals.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the High Court's judgment. The appellant was found not entitled to fixity of tenure, and the provisions of the 1964 Act and its amendments did not apply retrospectively to their case. The damages awarded by the lower courts were upheld, and the jurisdiction of civil courts over the matter was confirmed.

← Previous Next →