(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal arises from a decision of Bachawat, J., in a second appeal by the Plaintiff landlord from an ejectment suit. The suit was instituted on March 22. 1949 when the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1948 was in force and the relationship of landlords and tenants was governed to a large extent by that temporary Act. The landlord sought eviction on the ground that he had bona fide requirement for the godown which was the subject-matter of the tenancy and thus Section 11, Sub-section (1) proviso, Clause (f), of the Rent Control Act of 1948 was applicable, which provides that where the premises are bona fide required by the landlord either for purposes of building or rebuilding, or for his own occupation or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the premises are held, a suit for ejectment against the tenant can be filed. The learned Munsif who heard the suit decided thai bona fide requirement of the landlord for the godown in suit had been made out and accordingly on January 16, 1950 he granted a decree of ejectment. There was an appeal which was heard by the Subordinate Judge of Asausol. The learned Subordinate Judge reversed the finding of the learned Munsif on the question of bonafide requirement; lie was not satisfied that the Plaintiff's case came within Clause (f) of the proviso to Section 11, Sub-section (1) of the Rent Control Act of 1948. Accordingly the appeal was allowed on January 27, 1951 and the suit was dismissed. A second appeal was preferred against that decision by the Plaintiff landlord. Before Bachawat, J., the Appellant took the point that the protection under the provisions of Section 11 of the West B'engal Premises Bent Control Act of 1948 was no longer available after the expiry of that Act and accordingly the lower appellate court ought not to have granted to the Defendant the protection under that section, and that the High Court also could not give the protection of that section to the tenant Defendant. Bachawat, J., overruled the contention by relying on an unreported Division Bench decision of this Court in N.K. Dey and Sons v. Eastern Stock Agency Ltd. Unreported decision, dated Aug. 9, 1951, in Civ. Rev. 1749 of 1951, and on certain observations in the Full Bench decision in the case of Tarah Chandra Banerjee v. Ratan Lal Ghosal,1956 61 CalWN 281. Accordingly he dismissed the appeal, but granted leave to appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, as he considered that the point of law urged before him was a substantial question of law. Before us Mr. Chandra Narain Laik has urged this question of law at great length, namely, that the protection given to the tenant by Section 11 of the West Bengal Premises Bent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1948 is no longer available to him and was no longer available to him when the lower appellate court heard and decided the appeal; and that the relationship between the parties would be governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and therefore on the finding that notice determining the tenancy had been properly served the landlord was entitled to get a decree for ejectment.
(2.) The observations of Chakravarti, C.J., at p. 281 of the Full Bench case, Tarak Chandra Banerjee v. Ratan Lal Ghosal which were relied upon by Bachawat, J., are as follows:
With reference to the Act of 1948 which was also a temporary Act, I was able to find an intention that the rights, liabilities and remedies under it should survive its expiry because, as I pointed out the Act, even as originally' passed, provided that it might be extended up to March 31, 1953 and the Act, of 1950, which replaced it and substantially re-enacted its provisions, was also to remain in force up to that date. There was thus evidence of a legislative intention evinced by the Act of 1948 itself that the benefits provided by it should remain available up to the end of March, 1953 and the Act of 1950 which brought about an earlier end of the Act was designed to continue the beneficial policy of the Legislature during the remainder of the period which emphasized the intention.
(3.) In the earlier unreported case V.K. Dey and Sons v. Eastern Stock and Agency Ltd. which was a decision of Chakravarti, J., as he then was and P.N. Mookerjee, J., Chakravartti, J., gave the same reason for holding that the benefits and privileges given to a tenant under the 19-18 Act continued even after the Act had been repealed by the 1950 Act. In the unreported case reliance was also placed on the Division Bench decision S.B. Trading Company v. Satyendra Ch. Sen,1950 54 CalWN 756, where it was held that because the 1948 Act had been repealed before its expiry and had not been allowed to expire, Section 8 of the General Clauses Act would operate to save the rights and liabilities acquired or incurred under the 1948 Act. In the Full Bench decision Tarak Chandra Banerjee v. Ratan Lal Ghasal the learned Judges of the Full Bench did not accept that reasoning, but held that the repeal of a temporary Act would not save the rights and liabilities under a temporary Act except up to the end of the natural life of the temporary Act itself; but still at p. 281 of the decision, as already observed, the decision of the earlier case N.K. Dey and Sons v. Eastern Stock and Agency Ltd., that the rights and obligations under the 1948 Act had been saved at least up to the end of March, 1953, was reaffirmed.;