TRIMBAK DAMODHAR RAIPURKAR Vs. ASSARAM HIRAMAN PATIL
LAWS(SC)-1961-11-12
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on
November 29,1961
TRIMBAK DAMODHAR RAIPURKAR
Appellant
VERSUS
ASSARAM HIRAMAN PATIL
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
JIVABHAI PURSHOTTAM VS. CHHAGAN KARSON [RELIED ON]SAKHARAM ALIAS BAPUSAHEB NARAYAN SANAS VS. MANIKCHAND MOTICHAND SHAH [DISTINGUISHED]
Cited Judgements :-
MADARSA QURANIA ADAMPUR AKBAR DISTRICT JAUNPUR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2010-11-3] [REFERRED TO]JCB INDIA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED [LAWS(BOM)-2018-3-369] [REFERRED TO]
V BALARAMA RAJU VS. NATIONAL CADET CORPS,. ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1983-2-37] [REFERRED]
DANIRAIJI VRAJLALJI VS. VAHUJI MAHARAJ CHANDRAPRABHA [LAWS(GJH)-1970-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
J K J K UDAIPUR UDYOG LTD VS. STATEJ K UDAIPUR UDYOG LTD [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-12-6] [REFERRED TO]
ANUJ KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-2-87] [REFERRED TO]
SUNRISE STONE CRUSHER PVT LTD VS. STATE OF U P AND 3 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-198] [REFERRED TO]
RABIN TUDU VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2023-7-138] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLA ENGG & STEEL INDUSTRIES, LUDHIANA VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, LUDHIANA [LAWS(P&H)-2020-8-80] [REFERRED TO]
CYBER CITY COMPUTERS VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-12-139] [REFERRED TO]
VANDANA RAJORIYA VS. HARI SINGH GOUR UNIVERSITY, SAGAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-8-306] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR KATARIA VS. SURAKSHA DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-26] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PRASAD PANDEY AND 26 OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. AND 31 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-1-101] [REFERRED TO]
PROFESSOR K.A. NIZAMI VS. ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1985-9-85] [REFERRED TO]
RAMKRISHNA GOVINDRAO DANDI VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-1-59] [REFERRED TO]
ADANI EXPORTS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2004-7-61] [REFERRED TO]
MANEKJI EDULJI MISTRY AND VS. MANEKSHA ARDESHIR IRANI [LAWS(SC)-1971-8-54] [RELIED ON]
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD VS. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE BANK EMPLOYEES WELFARE FUND COMMITTEE [LAWS(KER)-2001-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE AND ORS. VS. KANAK EXPORTS AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-10-106] [REFERRED TO]
SIYARAM SHAKYA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-1981-8-96] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVEEN KUMAR AND ANR VS. STATE OF U P AND 3 ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-10-47] [REFERRED TO]
VISHWAS BAJIRAO PATIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
GANGUBAI WD/O DASHRATH MAKODE AND OTHERS VS. NILKANTH SRIPAT GOKHALE [LAWS(BOM)-1991-9-69] [REFERRED TO]
M.D. FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD. VS. HERO FINCORP LTD [LAWS(SC)-2017-9-23] [REFERRED TO]
SRIDHAR SUNDARARAJAN VS. ULTRAMARINE & PIGMENTS LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2016-2-9] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ NARAIN JAIN VS. FIRM SUKHA NAND RAM NARAIN [LAWS(ALL)-1979-8-12] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA KUMAR KHANNA VS. MANISH CHHATWAL [LAWS(ALL)-2008-10-72] [REFERRED TO]
SITARAM VITHAL NAIK VS. PRECIOSO SEQUERIA [LAWS(BOM)-1996-11-87] [REFERRED]
SRIDHAR SUNDARARAJAN VS. ULTRAMARINE & PIGMENTS LIMITED AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-7-68] [REFERRED TO]
RENDEZVOURS SPORTS WORLD & ORS. VS. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-8-281] [REFERRED TO]
SOCKLATINGA TEA COMPANY (P) LTD., CALCUTTA VS. THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ASSAM TEA PLANTATION PROVIDENT FUND (AND PENSION FUND) SCHEME, GAUHATI [LAWS(GAU)-1982-2-20] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. SUGAN CHANDRA [LAWS(ALL)-1984-11-5] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH SINGH YADAV & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-4-109] [REFERRED TO]
SHY AM LAL VS. RAJ KRISHNA AGRAWAL [LAWS(ALL)-2008-3-177] [REFERRED TO]
K GOPAL VS. SUDARSHAN DEVI BHATIA [LAWS(ALL)-2012-4-169] [REFERRED TO]
HUVAPPA MAHADEV MENSE VS. LAND TRIBUNAL BELGAUM [LAWS(KAR)-1987-8-31] [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA SUGAR WORKS SINGHAL SUGAR WORKS KASTA SUGAR INDUSTRY RATAN RAJENDRA PRASAD HIRDAY RAM AND SON S S S SUGAR WORKS BANDA KHANDSARI UDYOG BANSAL KHANDSARI UDYOG AGR VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHS:UNION OF INDIA :UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1981-2-29] [RELIED ON]
K S PARIPOORNAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(SC)-1994-9-114] [RELIED ON]
HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-5-50] [REFERRED TO]
NITIN AND ORS. VS. H.P. UNIVERSITY AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
P. SUSEELA AND ORS. VS. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-3-36] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMED HASAN REFAYEE VS. TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(MAD)-2019-7-203] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Gajendragadkar, J. -
(1.)This appeal by special leave arises out of a tenancy case instituted by the appellant against his tenants the respondents in the Court of the Mamaltdar, Raver (East Khandesh), in the State of Maharashtra. The property in suit consists of agricultural lands, Survey Nos. 32 and 38, situated in the village Raipur. The respondents had executed a rent note in respect of these lands in favour of the appellant on February 5, 1943. The period for which the rent note was executed was five years and the rent agreed to be paid annually was Rs. 785. In ordinary course the lease would have expired on March 31, 1948. However, before the lease expired on April 11, 1946 the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939 (Bombay Act XXIX of 1939) was applied to the area of East Khandesh where the lands are situated, and in consequence as a result of Section 23 (1) (b) of the said Act the five years period stipulated in the rent note was statutorily extended to ten years; the result was that under the said statutory provision the rent note in favour of the respondents would have expired on March 31, 1953. During the subsistence of the tenancy thus statutorily extended the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act LXVII of 1948 came into force. This Act repealed the earlier Act of 1939 except Sections 3, 3 (a) and 4 as modified. Sections 5 and 14 (2) of this Act are material. On March 11, 1952 the appellant gave notice to the respondents intimating to them that the period of the rent note executed by them which had been statutorily extended would expire on March 31, 1953 and calling upon them to deliver possession of the lands to him immediately thereafter. Before the notice could be effectively enforced on the expiration of the period of the lease, however, Bombay Act XXXIII of 1952 came into operation on January 12, 1953. This Act repealed S. 14 (2) and amended S. 5 and added sub-s. (3) to it. Shortly stated the effect of this amendment was that the tenancy of the respondents, who were till then ordinary tenants as distinct from protected tenants, could not be terminated on the expiry of their tenancy except by giving one year's notice and that too on the ground that the lands were required by the landlord for bona fide personal cultivation and that the income of the said lands would be the main source of income of the landlord. The relevant averments about these grounds had to be made by the landlord in issuing the notice to the tenants for terminating their tenancy.
(2.)On April 4, 1953 the appellant instituted the present tenancy proceedings for obtaining possession of the lands. The Mamlatdar who tried the proceedings rejected the appellant's claim on the ground that he had not terminated the tenancy of the respondents as required by law in that he had not given the statutory notice making the prescribed relevant averments in that behalf. The appellant then preferred an appeal against the decision of the Mamlatdar but the appellate authority agreed with the view taken by the Mamlatdar and dismissed his appeal. The dispute was then taken by the appellant before the Bombay Revenue Tribunal by way of a revisional application; and the revisional application succeeded. The Tribunal held that the relevant amendments on which the Mamlatdar and the appellate authority had relied in dismissing the appellant's claim were not retrospective and that the appellant was entitled to eject the respondents. This order of the Revenue Tribunal was challenged by the respondents by a petition filed by them under Art. 227 of the Constitution in the Bombay High Court. The High Court has allowed the writ petition and held that the relevant amendments are retrospective in operation and that the appellant is not entitled to eject the respondents. On that view the order passed by the Revenue Tribunal has been set aside and that of the appellate authority restored. It is against this decision that the appellant has come to this Court by special leave.
(3.)It is necessary at the outset to set out the relevant statutory provisions which fall to be considered in the present appeal.
(2.)On April 4, 1953 the appellant instituted the present tenancy proceedings for obtaining possession of the lands. The Mamlatdar who tried the proceedings rejected the appellant's claim on the ground that he had not terminated the tenancy of the respondents as required by law in that he had not given the statutory notice making the prescribed relevant averments in that behalf. The appellant then preferred an appeal against the decision of the Mamlatdar but the appellate authority agreed with the view taken by the Mamlatdar and dismissed his appeal. The dispute was then taken by the appellant before the Bombay Revenue Tribunal by way of a revisional application; and the revisional application succeeded. The Tribunal held that the relevant amendments on which the Mamlatdar and the appellate authority had relied in dismissing the appellant's claim were not retrospective and that the appellant was entitled to eject the respondents. This order of the Revenue Tribunal was challenged by the respondents by a petition filed by them under Art. 227 of the Constitution in the Bombay High Court. The High Court has allowed the writ petition and held that the relevant amendments are retrospective in operation and that the appellant is not entitled to eject the respondents. On that view the order passed by the Revenue Tribunal has been set aside and that of the appellate authority restored. It is against this decision that the appellant has come to this Court by special leave.
(3.)It is necessary at the outset to set out the relevant statutory provisions which fall to be considered in the present appeal.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.