Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1964 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1964 (2) TMI 75 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the Assam High Court was right in taking the view that the provisions of s. 5 applied to the proceedings between the parties which were pending at the relevant time before the lower appellate Court? Whether before or after the commencement of this Act, a tenant is entitled to build, and has in pursuance of such terms actually built within the period of five years from -the date of such contract, a permanent structure on the land of the tenancy for residential or business purposes? Held that - Appeal dismissed. Incidentally, an appeal pending before the lower appellate court is a continuation of the suit, and so, there is no difficulty in holding that a suit which was pending when the Act came into force would be governed by s. 5(1)(a) and an appeal arising from a suit which had been decided before the Act came into force, would likewise be governed by s. 5(1)(a), provided it is pending after the date when the Act came into force. Therefore, we are satisfied that the Assam High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the dispute between the parties in the present case must be governed by the provisions of s. 5(1)(a). It is common ground that if s. 5(1)(a) is held to apply, the decrees passed against the appellants in both the appeals cannot be successfully challenged.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Area Tenancy Act, 1955, to pending proceedings. 2. Retrospective versus prospective application of statutory provisions affecting vested rights. Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Area Tenancy Act, 1955, to Pending Proceedings: The appeals raised the question of the construction and effect of Section 5 of the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Area Tenancy Act, 1955. The appellant sought eviction of the tenant based on the expiration of the lease and alleged subletting. The tenant resisted the suit, and while the appeal was pending, the Act came into force. The tenant argued that Section 5 of the Act should apply to the pending proceedings, which the lower appellate court accepted. Section 5(i) states: "Notwithstanding anything in any contract or in any law for the time being in force-(a) where under the terms of a contract entered into between a landlord and his tenant whether before or after the commencement of this Act, a tenant is entitled to build, and has in pursuance of such terms actually built within the period of five years from the date of such contract, a permanent structure on the land of the tenancy for residential or business purposes, or where a tenant not being so entitled to build, has actually built any such structure on the land of the tenancy for any of the purposes aforesaid with the knowledge and acquiescence of the landlord, the tenant shall not be ejected by the landlord from the tenancy except on the ground of non-payment of rent..." The Supreme Court held that the Assam High Court was correct in applying Section 5 to the pending proceedings. The Court emphasized that the Act was intended to protect tenants who had built permanent structures within five years of the lease, even if constructed before the Act came into force. This protection extended to pending proceedings, including those at the appellate stage. 2. Retrospective versus Prospective Application of Statutory Provisions Affecting Vested Rights: The appellant argued that the statutory provision should not be given retroactive operation unless explicitly stated by the legislature, especially when it affects vested rights. The Supreme Court acknowledged the general rule that statutory provisions affecting vested rights are presumed to be prospective unless clearly stated otherwise. However, the Court noted that retroactive operation could be inferred if it is implicit in the provision's context. Section 2 of the Act states: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or in any law for the time being in force, the provisions of this Act shall apply to all non-agricultural tenancies whether created before or after the date on which this Act comes into force." This indicated the legislature's intention to apply the Act's provisions to leases created before its enactment, thereby affecting vested rights of landlords. The Court further reasoned that Section 5's language, which prohibits the eviction of tenants who have built permanent structures within five years of the lease, implicitly supports retroactive application. The term "shall not be ejected" suggests protection against eviction even in pending proceedings. The Court concluded that the legislative intent was to provide immediate protection to tenants, including those involved in ongoing litigation. Therefore, the pending appeals were governed by Section 5(1)(a), and the decrees against the appellants could not be successfully challenged. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that Section 5 of the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Area Tenancy Act, 1955, applied to pending proceedings, thereby providing protection to tenants who had built permanent structures within the specified period. The appeals were dismissed with costs, and the decrees against the appellants were upheld.
|