1960 (4) TMI 48 - SC - Indian Laws

Court applies amended Thika Tenancy Act to pending cases; stresses judicial propriety; appeal dismissed.

The court held that the amended Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act without Section 28 applied to all pending proceedings, including a tenant's application for ... Retrospective operation of statute - amendment by omission - construction of proviso in amending Act - power to rescind or vary decrees - beneficent legislation interpretation - continuance of proceedingsRetrospective operation of statute - amendment by omission - construction of proviso in amending Act - power to rescind or vary decrees - Whether applications made under section 28 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, and pending when the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1953, came into force are to be disposed of under the now-omitted section 28 or are governed by the Act in its amended shape which excludes section 28. - HELD THAT: - The Court applied established rules of statutory construction: substantive rights are ordinarily prospective unless a contrary intention is clearly expressed; words must be given their plain grammatical meaning; and ambiguities in beneficent legislation favour meanings that preserve benefits only if ambiguity exists. Section 1(2) of the Amendment Act provides that the provisions of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act 'as amended by this Act' shall apply and be deemed always to have applied to suits and proceedings pending on the date of commencement of the Amendment Ordinance. Reading the Amendment Act as a whole (including express omissions of ss. 28 and 29), the phrase 'as amended by this Act' was held to embrace additions, alterations and omissions, so that the Act in its new shape - containing the added and altered provisions but lacking ss. 28 and 29 - is to be treated as having applied to pending proceedings. Because s. 28 was omitted by the Amendment Act, the courts ceased to have the power conferred by that section to rescind or vary prior decrees; accordingly applications under s. 28 pending when the Ordinance came into force could not be granted under the omitted section. The Court rejected the contention that the proviso was ambiguous or should be strained to preserve the benefit of s. 28, holding that the language bears a single grammatical meaning and that speculative policy considerations cannot override the clear legislative intent.Applications pending under section 28 when the Amendment Ordinance came into force are governed by the Act in its amended shape and, since section 28 was omitted, such pending applications cannot be disposed of by granting relief under the now-omitted section; the High Court's conclusion to this effect is upheld.Beneficent legislation interpretation - continuance of proceedings - Whether a Division Bench of a High Court may decline to follow an earlier Division Bench decision of the same High Court without referring the question to a larger Bench. - HELD THAT: - The Court observed that judicial propriety and the need for certainty require that a Division Bench differing from an earlier Division Bench on a question of law should not simply overrule the earlier decision but should refer the matter to a larger Bench. The practice prevents confusion among courts and the bar and preserves stability of law; the High Court judges should have followed that procedure instead of declaring the prior decision wrong without a reference.A Division Bench should not disregard a previous Division Bench decision of the same High Court but must refer the question to a larger Bench; the judges erred in treating the earlier decision as wrong without such reference, and this practice is censured.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed on the merits: applications pending under section 28 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, when the Amendment Ordinance came into force are not entitled to relief under the now-omitted section 28 and must be treated as governed by the Act in its amended form; costs are borne by the parties in view of prior uncertainty in the law. Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 28 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act after its omission by the Amendment Act of 1953.2. Interpretation of Section 1(2) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1953.3. Judicial propriety and the practice of referring questions to a larger Bench in case of differing opinions.Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Section 28 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act after its Omission by the Amendment Act of 1953:The principal question in this appeal was whether the provisions of Section 28 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act could be applied by a court in a case where an application had been made by a tenant for relief under that section, and such application was pending for disposal on the date the omission became effective due to the Amendment Act of 1953. The court noted that Section 28 provided special protection to tenants against whom decrees or orders had been obtained but possession had not been recovered. However, the Amendment Act of 1953 omitted Section 28, raising the issue of whether pending applications under this section could still be disposed of under its provisions.2. Interpretation of Section 1(2) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1953:The decision hinged on the interpretation of Section 1(2) of the Amendment Act, which states that the provisions of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, as amended by this Act, shall apply and be deemed to have always applied to all suits, appeals, and proceedings pending before any court on the date of the commencement of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Amendment) Ordinance, 1952. The court held that the phrase 'as amended by this Act' qualifies the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, in its entirety, including omissions. Therefore, the amended Act without Section 28 applied to all pending proceedings, including the tenant's application for relief under Section 28, which was pending on the crucial date.3. Judicial Propriety and the Practice of Referring Questions to a Larger Bench:The court expressed regret that the High Court judges, who heard the present appeal, did not follow the usual procedure of referring the question to a larger Bench when they disagreed with an earlier decision of two judges of the same High Court in Deorajan Debi v. Satyadhan Ghosal (1953) 58 C.W.N. 64. The court emphasized that judicial decorum and propriety necessitate that if one Division Bench differs from an earlier view on a question of law of another Division Bench, a reference should be made to a larger Bench. This practice ensures the quality of certainty in law and avoids confusion among lawyers and subordinate courts.Conclusion:The court concluded that the view taken by the High Court, that the effect of Section 1(2) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1953, is that all pending applications under Section 28 of the original Act must be dismissed, was correct. The court dismissed the appeal but ordered that parties bear their own costs due to the uncertainty in the law regarding the applicability of Section 28 to proceedings pending on the commencement of the Thika Tenancy Ordinance, 1952.