S N KAMBLE Vs. SHOLAPUR BOROUGH MUNICIPATITY
LAWS(SC)-1960-8-25
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on August 27,1960

S.N.KAMBLE Appellant
VERSUS
SHOLAPUR BOROUGH MUNICIPATITY Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

MALLAPPA DHARMANNA BALAGAL VS. SRIPATHIGURACHARYA GALAGALI [LAWS(KAR)-1972-5-12] [RELIED ON]
NILESH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VS. GANGUBAI WD O OF BABLYA BENDU CHAUDHARY [LAWS(BOM)-1982-4-27] [REFERRED TO]
BABULALALIASDAMODHARHIRALAL GUJARATHI VS. KISANSHRIPAT PATIL [LAWS(BOM)-2002-4-107] [REFERRED TO]
HUVAPPA MAHADEV MENSE VS. LAND TRIBUNAL BELGAUM [LAWS(KAR)-1987-8-31] [REFERRED TO]
RIAZUR RAHMAN VS. VENKATERATNAM [LAWS(APH)-1984-2-26] [REFERRED TO]
RABARI HAMIRA HENGOL VS. BAI MANI KASALA [LAWS(GJH)-1975-8-18] [REFERRED]
A A SHIRDONE VS. SAHEB H TAJBHOKHARI [LAWS(SC)-1985-3-26] [APPROVED]
TRIBHOV AND AS HARIBHAI TAMBOLI VS. GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(SC)-1991-5-27] [REFERRED TO]
GURDIAL SINGH VS. ANIMESH CHANDRA ROY GUPTA [LAWS(CAL)-1976-2-45] [REFERRED TO]
BANABAI RAMA KALANTRE VS. PANDURANG HINDURAO PATIL [LAWS(BOM)-2004-8-38] [REFERRED TO]
PARVATI VS. FATEHSINHRAO PRATAPSINHRAO GAEKWAD [LAWS(SC)-1986-9-22] [RELIED ON]
NARAYAN GOPAL MHATRE VS. SHANKAR SITARAM SONTAKKE [LAWS(BOM)-1967-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
VASANJI KEVALBHAI VS. DAHIBEN WD O OF RANCHHODJI JIVANJI [LAWS(GJH)-1973-4-12] [REFERRED]
RAMAPPA KADAPPA KONNUR VS. SANGAPPA PARAPPA KAVALLI [LAWS(KAR)-1987-9-37] [REFERRED TO]
DAHIBEN WIDOW OF RANCHHODJI JIVANJI VS. VASANJI KEVALBHAI DEAD [LAWS(SC)-1995-4-31] [REFERRED TO]
NAVINCHANDRA RAMANLAL VS. KALIDAS BHUDARBHAI [LAWS(SC)-1979-2-56] [REFERRED TO]
NEW ASARWA MFG COMPANY LIMITED VS. JETHA PARMA [LAWS(GJH)-1972-5-7] [REFERRED]
PANDURANG KAMLAKAR PATIL VS. SOHAM BUILDERS [LAWS(BOM)-2020-6-176] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHANDRA SHRIVAS VS. MURTI RAMCHANDRAJI [LAWS(MPH)-2003-11-27] [REFERRED TO]
DALWADI JAYANTILAL DAHYABHAI VS. MANISHANKER MANEKLAL PANDYA [LAWS(GJH)-1976-12-9] [REFERRED]
RAMA VITHAL KALNTRE VS. PANDURANG HINDURAO PATIL [LAWS(BOM)-2004-8-138] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMIBAI KISANRAO TAMHANE VS. TRIVENIBAI [LAWS(BOM)-1971-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
KIRITKUMAR KANIYALAL VS. KANJIBHAI KALIABHAI [LAWS(GJH)-1993-6-47] [REFERRED]
PATEL AMBALAL MANILAL VS. DESAI JAGDISHCHANDRA NAGINLAL [LAWS(GJH)-1976-1-9] [REFERRED]
COLLECTOR COURT OF WARDS MANAGING PROPERTY OF PATEL RATILAL MITHABHAI VS. SONABEN [LAWS(GJH)-1977-4-17] [REFERRED]
N.D. MUTHUSWAMY RAO AND OTHERS VS. MEWALAL RAJARAM DUBE AND OTHERS [LAWS(BOM)-1987-11-50] [REFERRED TO]
PRALHAD GANABA KAPARE VS. SADABA RAMBHAU BHONSALE [LAWS(BOM)-1972-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN FERRODO LTD VS. HARI LACHMAN HASIJA [LAWS(BOM)-2003-2-130] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Wanchoo, J. - (1.)The appellant took on lease two survey numbers from the respondent, Sholapur Borough Municipality on April 1, 1946 for a period of three years. The land is situate within the municipal limits. About November 8, 1946, the Bombay Tenancy Act, No. 29 of 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 1939-Act) was applied to this area and S. 3-A of that Act provided that every tenant shall on the expiry of one year from the date of the coming into force of the Bombay Tenancy (Amendment) Act, (No. XXVI of 1946) be deemed to be a protected tenant unless his landlord has within the said period made an application to the Mamlatdar for a declaration that the tenant was not a protected one. The respondent did not file a suit within one year and therefore the appellant claimed to have become a protected tenant under the 1939-Act. The 1939-Act was repealed in 1948 by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, No. LXVII of 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 1948-Act). Section 31 of the 1948- Act provided that for the purposes of this Act a person shall be recognised to be a protected tenant if such person had been deemed to be a protected tenant under S. 3, 3-A or 4 of the 1939-Act. Ordinarily, therefore, the appellant would have become a protected tenant under this section of the 1948-Act, if he had become a protected tenant under the 1939-Act. But S. 88 of the 1948-Act inter alia provided that nothing in the foregoing provisions of the 1948-Act shall apply to lands held on lease from a local authority. Therefore if S. 88 prevailed over S. 31, the appellant would not be entitled to the benefit of S. 31 and could not claim to be a protected tenant under this section. The appellant however relied on S. 89 (2) of the 1948-Act which provided for the repeal of the 1939-Acct except for Ss. 3, 3-A and 4 which continued as modified in Schedule I of the 1948 Act. That sub-section provided that nothing in the 1948-Act or any repeal effected thereby shall save as expressly provided in this Act affect or be deemed to affect any right, title, interest, obligation or liability already acquired, accrued or incurred before the commencement of the 1948-Act.
(2.)In the present case the respondent gave notice to the appellant on May 2, 1955 terminating his tenancy with effect from March 31, 1956. Subsequently the respondent filed suit No. 42 of 1957 for obtaining possession of the lands and for certain other reliefs. It was held in that suit that the respondent could not get possession of the lands as the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the 1948-Act and consequently the respondent's suit for possession was dismissed. The respondent then appealed to the District Court. During the pendency of that appeal the appellant made an application on September 8, 1958 for a declaration that he was a protected tenant of the lands and also for fixing rent under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. Further in the appeal filed in the District Court a compromise was arrived at by which the order dismissing the respondent's suit for possession was set aside and the suit was remanded to the trial Court with the direction that the suit be stayed and disposed of after the decision by the Mamlatdar. The compromise provided that if the appellant was finally held to be tenant by the authorities under the 1948-Act the suit for possession would be dismissed. It also provided that if the decision in the proceedings under the Tenancy Act went against the appellant, the suit for possession would be decreed.
(3.)The Mamlatdar held that the appellant was a tenant and gave him a declaration under S. 70 (b) of the 1948 Act. The respondent then went in appeal to the Collector, and the Collector decided that the Mamlatdar had no jurisdiction to decide whether the appellant was a tenant. The appellant then went in revision to the Bombay Revenue Tribunal. The tribunal held, in view of the amendments that had been made in the 1948-Act by the Amendment Act of 1956 by which S. 88-B was introduced in the 1948-Act, that the revenue Court had jurisdiction to decide whether the appellant was a tenant. Finally it remanded the matter to the Collector for decision on the question whether the appellant was a tenant or a protected tenant on the merits.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.