1995 (4) TMI 249 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 insofar as the amendment at hand is concerned, could it be reasonably said that the same operates retrospectively? Held that - Appeal allowed. No difficulty in holding that insofar as the present case is concerned, the amendment has to be held as applicable to the suit which was pending. Indeed, we would go further and say that even if vested right would have accrued to the landlord by the time the amendment of 1952 came to force, a view could well be taken that the amendment should apply retrospectively.

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 as amended by Bombay Act No. 33 of 1952.
2. Retrospective application of the 1952 amendment.
3. Jurisdiction of the civil court in light of the amendment.
4. Status of the respondents as protected tenants.
5. Impact of previous judgments on the current case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 as amended by Bombay Act No. 33 of 1952:
The core issue in this appeal revolves around the interpretation of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, particularly as amended by Bombay Act No. 33 of 1952. The court emphasized that given the beneficial nature of the legislation towards tenants, a liberal interpretation is required. The court concluded that the 1952 amendment relates back to the original Act and applies to pending suits at the time the amendment came into force.

2. Retrospective Application of the 1952 Amendment:
The court addressed whether the 1952 amendment should be applied retrospectively. The plaintiffs argued that the civil court would lose jurisdiction if the amendment applied retrospectively. The court noted that the amendment was intended to benefit tenants and should be applied to the pending suit. It referred to several precedents, including the Privy Council decision in KC Mukherjee v. Ram Raton Kuer and the Supreme Court's decision in Rafiguennessa v. Lal Bahadur, which support the retrospective application of beneficial legislation.

3. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court in Light of the Amendment:
The court examined whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit for eviction filed by the appellants. Given the retrospective application of the 1952 amendment, the court concluded that the civil court did not have jurisdiction over the matter. This conclusion was supported by the observation that the respondents' status as protected tenants was revived by the amendment, thereby removing the civil court's jurisdiction.

4. Status of the Respondents as Protected Tenants:
The court analyzed the status of the respondents as protected tenants. The respondents argued that they remained protected tenants despite the provisions of section 88(1)(c) of the Act. The court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in S.N. Kamble v. Sholapur Borough Municipality, which held that tenants who acquired protected status under the 1939 Act would not continue to enjoy that status in areas covered by clause (c) of section 88(1). However, the court found that the respondents' status as protected tenants was revived by the 1952 amendment.

5. Impact of Previous Judgments on the Current Case:
The court considered the relevance of previous judgments, including Mohanlal Chunilal Kothari v. Tribhovan Haribhai Tamboli and Hiralal Prabhubhai v. Nagmdas Atmaram Khatri. The appellants argued that these cases should not be relied upon due to the overruling of Sakharam's decision in Kamble's case. The court, however, found that the principles established in Mohanlal's case regarding the retrospective application of beneficial legislation were applicable to the present case. The court emphasized that beneficial legislation should be interpreted liberally to fulfill its objective.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the 1952 amendment to the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act applies retrospectively to the pending suit, thereby reviving the respondents' status as protected tenants. Consequently, the civil court lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the eviction suit. The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.

Separate Judgment:
In a related appeal, the appellants were held to be protected tenants, and the appeal was allowed. The legal representatives of the appellants were permitted to proceed further as ordered by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal and Mamlatdar, which was upheld by the Assistant Collector and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The parties were left to bear their own costs.

← Previous Next →