Supreme Court Upholds Tenant in Ejectment Suit Under Assam Act 12 of 1955 Despite Letting Out Permanent Structures. Interpretation of 'For Residential or Business Purposes' in Section 5(1)(a) Focuses on Structure's Character, Not Tenant's Personal Use.

Case Note & Summary

The litigation arose out of an ejectment suit filed by the landlords against a tenant of land in Silchar, Assam. The original tenant, Biswambar Roy, held a lease for ten years from 1928 on a plot of land, later renewed in 1938 for another ten years. He constructed on the land buildings, some for residential use and others as warehouses. The respondents purchased the landlords' interest and on August 3, 1951, instituted a suit for vacant possession in the Court of the Sadar Munsiff, Silchar. The tenant resisted, and during pendency of the appeal, the Non-agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, Assam Act 12 of 1955, came into force, which provided protection from eviction to tenants who had built permanent structures for residential or business purposes. The trial court decreed the suit for ejectment. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge reversed and dismissed the suit, holding that the tenant had acquired rights of a permanent tenant under Section 5(1)(a) of the Act because he had constructed permanent structures within the prescribed period. The landlords appealed to the High Court. Deka J. held that the tenant could not claim protection because he had let out the buildings to tenants; the learned Judge interpreted the expression 'for residential or business purposes' as requiring the tenant's personal use. A Letters Patent appeal against that judgment was heard by a Division Bench consisting of Sinha C.J. and Mehrotra J., who differed. Sinha C.J. held the structures conformed to the description and protection applied; Mehrotra J. held the tenant who built for letting out did not build for his own purposes and could not claim protection. Due to the difference of opinion, the appeal was dismissed under Section 98(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The tenant's representatives then obtained special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether a tenant qualifies for protection under Section 5(1)(a) of the Assam Act only if he occupies the permanent structures for his own residential or business purposes, or whether the letting out of such structures forfeits the protection. The Court had already held in Refiquennessa v. Lal Bahadur Chetri that Section 5 has retrospective operation, so the only question was the interpretation of the phrase 'for residential or business purposes'. The landlords argued that the legislature could not have intended to protect sub-tenants, since a sub-tenant is not a tenant under Section 3(g) of the Act and that a tenant who built for letting out should not be protected. The tenant contended that the protection is conferred on the tenant of the land and not on the tenant of buildings, and that letting out structures does not terminate his possession of the land. The Supreme Court rejected the landlords' argument as misconceived. The Court held that the section merely requires that the permanent structure be one adapted for residential or business purposes; if the structure is not adapted to such purposes, protection is unavailable. To read the expression as meaning constructed by the tenant for his own residential or business purposes would add words not found in the section. Protection is conferred in terms on the tenant of the land, not on the tenant of the buildings. By merely letting the premises, the tenant does not cease to be in possession of the land; the relation between landlord and tenant continues until lawfully determined. A building constructed for residential or business purposes does not cease to be for such purposes when let out. Therefore, the Court agreed with Sinha C.J.'s view and held that the protection of Section 5(1)(a) extends to a tenant who has constructed permanent structures adapted for residential or business use, and letting out does not forfeit protection. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, vacated the decree passed by the High Court, and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The appellants, as representatives of the tenant, were awarded costs in the Supreme Court; no order as to costs in the High Court.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

Appeal allowed; decree passed by the High Court vacated; plaintiffs' suit dismissed; appellants (tenant's representatives) entitled to costs in Supreme Court; no order as to costs in High Court. The Court held that protection under Section 5(1)(a) extends to a tenant who has constructed permanent structures adapted for residential or business purposes, even if the structures are let out.

Law Points