9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1961 (4) TMI 86 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the defendants-appellants are protected tenants within the meaning of the Bombay Tenancy Act (Bombay Act XXIX of 1939) whose rights as such were not affected by the repeal of that Act by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (Bombay Act LXVII of 1948)? Held that - It is clear that so far as the appellants were concerned their status as protected tenants had been recognised by the public authorities under the Act of 1939 and they bad to do nothing more to bring their case within the expression right accrued in el. (b) of s. 89(2) of the Act of 1948. The controversy has to be resolved with reference to the provisions of the repealed statute. That being so in Our Opinion the intention of the legislature was that the litigation we are now dealing with should be disposed of in terms of the repealed statute of 1939. It has not been disputed before us that if that. is done there is only one answer to this suit namely that it must be dismissed with costs. Accordingly we allow the appeal set aside the judgments below and dismiss the suit with costs throughout to the contesting defendants-appellants.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the defendants-appellants are 'protected tenants' under the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939. 2. Whether the repeal of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939 by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 affected the defendants' status as 'protected tenants'. 3. Interpretation of Sections 88 and 89 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether the defendants-appellants are 'protected tenants' under the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939. The defendants obtained a lease of the disputed lands from the plaintiff on October 30, 1939, for a period of 10 years. The Act of 1939, which became law on March 27, 1940, and was applied to Poona area from April 11, 1946, provided under Section 3 that a tenant shall be deemed to be a 'protected tenant' if he has held the land continuously for a period of not less than six years immediately preceding either January 1, 1938, or January 1, 1945, and has personally cultivated the land during that period. The defendants met these conditions and were thus deemed 'protected tenants' under Section 3A(1) of the Act of 1939, with their rights recorded in the Record of Rights. The landlord did not challenge this status within the stipulated period, thereby affirming the defendants' status as 'protected tenants'. Issue 2: Whether the repeal of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939 by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 affected the defendants' status as 'protected tenants'. The Act of 1948, under Section 2(14) and Section 31, recognized 'protected tenants' as those deemed under Sections 3, 3A, or 4 of the Act of 1939. However, Section 88(1)(c) of the Act of 1948 excluded its application to areas within two miles of the limits of Poona Municipal Borough. The defendants argued that their rights as 'protected tenants' were preserved by Section 89(2)(b) of the Act of 1948, which states that the repeal of the Act of 1939 does not affect any right, title, interest, obligation, or liability accrued before the commencement of the Act of 1948. Issue 3: Interpretation of Sections 88 and 89 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The plaintiff-respondent contended that Section 88 expressly excluded the application of Sections 1 to 87 of the Act of 1948 to the disputed lands, thereby nullifying the defendants' status as 'protected tenants'. However, the court found that Section 88 was prospective and did not intend to confiscate accrued rights. Section 89(2)(b) preserved the defendants' rights as 'protected tenants' under the Act of 1939, as these rights had been recognized and recorded in the Record of Rights. The court dismissed the argument that the saving clause in Section 89(2)(b) only applied to rights that had been exercised and recognized, stating that the defendants' status as 'protected tenants' was an accrued right not requiring further action. The court concluded that the defendants' status as 'protected tenants' was preserved by the saving clause in Section 89(2)(b) of the Act of 1948, and the provisions of Section 88 did not retrospectively affect these rights. The litigation was to be resolved based on the provisions of the repealed Act of 1939. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the judgments of the lower courts were set aside, and the suit was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants-appellants. The court held that the defendants' accrued rights as 'protected tenants' under the Act of 1939 were preserved despite the enactment of the Act of 1948.
|
