Strict construction of tenancy exceptions limits exclusion where land is only indirectly linked to an improvement scheme.

Section 30(c) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act was construed strictly as an exception to a protective tenancy statute, so it applied only where land was directly and specifically required for carrying out a provision of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911. Land merely included in an improvement scheme and subjected to betterment fee, with the fee credited to the Board's accounts, was held insufficient because that created only an indirect fiscal connection, not a direct statutory requirement. The exception therefore did not exclude the Thika Tenancy Act, civil court jurisdiction was barred, and the dismissal of the ejectment suits was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether land included in an improvement scheme and subjected to betterment fee under the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 is land "required for carrying out any of the provisions" of that Act within section 30(c) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, so as to exclude the applicability of the Thika Tenancy Act and permit an ejectment suit in the ordinary civil court.

Analysis: Section 30(c) is an exception to a protective and beneficial tenancy statute, and it must therefore be construed strictly. The expression "land which is required for carrying out any of the provisions of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911" was held to require a direct and necessary connection between the land itself and a specific provision of the Improvement Act. A mere indirect relation, such as the land being comprised in an improvement scheme and being made liable to betterment fee, was not enough. The levy of betterment fee under section 78A and the crediting of that fee to the Board's accounts under section 122 may assist the general objects of the Improvement Act, but they do not show that the land itself is required for carrying out any particular provision of that Act. The Court also held that the legislative scheme of the Thika Tenancy Act would be unduly narrowed if private landholders were treated on the same footing as Government or statutory bodies merely because their land was included in an improvement scheme.

Conclusion: Section 30(c) was not attracted. The suits were governed by the Thika Tenancy Act, the civil court had no jurisdiction, and the trial court's dismissal of the suits was restored in favour of the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: An exception excluding a beneficial tenancy statute applies only when the land is directly and specifically required for carrying out a provision of the other statute, and not when the land merely contributes indirectly through betterment fee or other fiscal consequences.

---