1965 (8) TMI 75 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court remands case for exclusive Revenue Court determination, directs payment of appeal costs.

ISHVERLAL THAKORELAL ALMAULA Versus MOTIBHAI NAGJIBHAI

ISHVERLAL THAKORELAL ALMAULA Versus MOTIBHAI NAGJIBHAI - 1966 AIR 459, 1966 SCR (1) 367 Issues Involved:1. Termination of tenancy rights.2. Jurisdiction of Civil Court to grant a decree for possession.3. Interpretation and application of statutory provisions under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and subsequent amendments.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Termination of Tenancy Rights:The appellant granted tenancy rights for agricultural purposes in 1939, which continued under fresh agreements year after year. The appellant issued a notice to terminate the tenancy on November 2, 1955, and sought possession of the land by March 31, 1956. The appellant filed a suit for ejectment and mesne profits on April 4, 1956. The Civil Judge initially decreed in favor of the appellant, but the District Judge reversed this decision, holding that the respondent's tenancy rights were protected by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, as amended by Act 13 of 1956. The District Judge concluded that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to grant possession due to the proviso to Section 43C of the amended Act, which protected the respondent's tenancy rights retrospectively.2. Jurisdiction of Civil Court to Grant a Decree for Possession:The appellant contended that the respondent's tenancy rights were extinguished by the enactment of Bombay Act 33 of 1952 and were not restored by Act 13 of 1956. The appellant argued that the Civil Court was competent to grant a decree for possession. However, the Supreme Court held that the Civil Court could not try issues exclusively triable by the Revenue Court, as mandated by Sections 70 and 85 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The proper procedure was for the Civil Court to refer such issues to the Revenue Court and then proceed based on the Revenue Court's findings.3. Interpretation and Application of Statutory Provisions:The Supreme Court examined the legislative history and amendments to the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The Court noted that the respondent acquired protected tenancy rights under the 1948 Act, which were preserved despite the Act's repeal. The amendments by Act 33 of 1952 excluded lands within municipal boroughs from the Act's operation, but Act 13 of 1956 restored these rights retrospectively. The proviso to Section 43C of the amended Act protected the respondent's tenancy rights acquired under the 1948 Act, notwithstanding the amendments made by Act 33 of 1952 and Act 13 of 1956.The Supreme Court clarified that the proviso to Section 43C, although clumsily drafted, aimed to protect tenancy rights acquired under the 1948 Act from being affected by the subsequent amendments. The Court rejected the appellant's reliance on Section 89(2)(b) of the 1948 Act and Section 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, as these provisions did not apply to rights acquired after the commencement of the 1948 Act.The Supreme Court agreed with the Bombay High Court's decision in Patel Maganbhai Jethabhai's case, which held that the proviso to Section 43C protected tenants' rights retrospectively. However, the Court found that the District Judge erred in dismissing the suit outright. Instead, the Civil Court should have referred the relevant issues to the Revenue Court for determination.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the decrees of the High Court and the District Court and remanded the case to the District Court. The District Court was directed to restore the appeal to its original number and proceed according to law, referring issues exclusively triable by the Revenue Court to that authority. The appellant's legal representatives were ordered to pay the costs of the appeal to the respondent, with costs in the District Court to abide by the final decision.Separate Judgment:Mudholkar, J., concurred with the majority opinion but emphasized the procedural aspects of referring issues to the Mamlatdar (Revenue Court) for determination. He reiterated that the Civil Court must stay proceedings and refer issues related to tenancy status to the Mamlatdar, who has exclusive jurisdiction under Sections 70 and 85 of the Act. The suit should be decided based on the Mamlatdar's findings.