1957 (9) TMI 45 - SC - Indian Laws

Civil Courts Have Jurisdiction Over Execution Petitions Under Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act

KANAI LAL SUR Versus PARAMNIDHI SADHUKHAN

The court held that civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain execution petitions under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, as amended by the Calcutta ... - Issues Involved:1. Competence of civil courts to entertain execution proceedings under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, as amended by the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1953.2. Interpretation of Section 5(1) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act.3. Application of welfare legislation principles.4. Impact of legislative amendments on pending and executed decrees.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Competence of Civil Courts to Entertain Execution Proceedings:The appellant contended that execution proceedings for the decree of ejectment should be entertained only by the Controller and not by civil courts, as per Section 5(1) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, as amended by the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1953. The court held that civil courts have the jurisdiction to entertain execution petitions filed by the respondent against the appellant. The court reasoned that the intention of the legislature must be found in the words used in the statute, and Section 5(1) does not apply to execution proceedings for decrees already passed.2. Interpretation of Section 5(1) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act:The court examined the history of the legislation and concluded that Section 5(1) applies to original proceedings initiated by landlords for ejectment on grounds specified in Section 3. It does not extend to execution proceedings for decrees already obtained. The court emphasized that the words used in the statute must be interpreted in their plain grammatical meaning unless they are ambiguous.3. Application of Welfare Legislation Principles:The appellant argued for a beneficent construction of the Thika Tenancy Act, citing it as a piece of welfare legislation intended to protect thika tenants. The court acknowledged this principle but reiterated that the primary rule of construction is to find the legislative intent in the words used. The court stated that hypothetical constructions cannot override clear legislative language.4. Impact of Legislative Amendments on Pending and Executed Decrees:The court analyzed the amendments made by the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1953, and the preceding ordinances. It noted that Section 28, which provided protection to judgment-debtors, was deleted, and Section 5(2) of the 1952 Ordinance allowed judgment-debtors to apply for setting aside decrees within three months of the Ordinance's commencement. The appellant did not avail himself of this provision, and thus, the protection under Section 5(1) could not be extended to him.Conclusion:The court concluded that the civil courts were competent to entertain the execution petition filed by the respondent. The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the lower courts' decisions. The court emphasized that the legislative amendments and the deletion of Section 28 indicated a revised policy by the legislature, limiting the protection available to thika tenants with existing decrees.