9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Competency of the revisional application in light of the omission of Section 28 from the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, by the Amendment Act, 1953. 2. Determination of the petitioners' status as 'thika tenants' under the amended definition. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Competency of the Revisional Application The primary issue was whether the revisional application was competent given the omission of Section 28 from the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, by the Amendment Act, 1953. The petitioners argued that their right to relief under Section 28 should be preserved despite its repeal. They relied on Section 8 of the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899, which generally protects rights accrued under repealed statutes unless a different intention appears from the new Act. The court examined Section 1(2) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Amendment Act, 1953, which states that the provisions of the amended Act shall apply and be deemed to have always applied to all pending proceedings. The court interpreted that this did not necessarily nullify the rights accrued under the repealed Section 28. The court noted that the amended Act aimed to provide relief to thika tenants and that the legislative intent was to protect pending proceedings. The court distinguished between the amended provisions being deemed to have always applied to pending proceedings and the amended provisions being the law from the commencement of the original Act. The former interpretation allowed the pending proceedings to remain competent. The court also referenced legislative discussions to support the view that the intention was to protect pending suits, appeals, and proceedings. Thus, the court held that the present proceedings were competent, disagreeing with the decision in the case of 'Jogiai Chamarin v. Atul Krishna', AIR1953Cal770, which had ruled otherwise. Issue 2: Status as 'Thika Tenants' The second issue was whether the petitioners could be considered 'thika tenants' under the amended definition. The court reviewed the evidence presented regarding the nature of the tenancy. The petitioners' predecessor had taken settlement of the land for residential purposes in a Bustee area, and while the landlord argued that the huts were purchased rather than erected by the tenant, the amended definition of 'thika tenant' included acquisition by purchase for residential purposes. The court found that the lease was for a term of three years, not twelve years or more, but the tenants had been holding over and occupying the land for more than twelve years. Therefore, the requirements of the amended definition were satisfied, and the petitioners were deemed to be 'thika tenants'. Conclusion The application succeeded, and the rule was made absolute. The order of the learned Munsif dismissing the application under Section 28 was set aside, and the case was remanded for disposal according to law. Both parties were ordered to bear their own costs up to this stage. Separate Judgment Note P.N. Mookerjee, J., concurred with the decision but added observations on the pitfalls of hasty and poorly drafted legislation, emphasizing the need for careful and clear legislative drafting to avoid unnecessary litigation and confusion. He agreed with the interpretation that the amended Act should be construed to provide relief to thika tenants, aligning with the legislative intent and purpose.
|
