Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a registered lease dated December 4, 1934, executed by the Bhowanipore Wards Estate in favour of the appellant, Manujendra Dutt, in respect of land at a monthly rent of Rs. 47-0-3P. The lease was for a fixed term of ten years and contained an option for renewal if the lessee offered the maximum rent obtainable from intending tenants. Clause 7 of the lease required the lessee to restore the land after removing structures and also provided that if the lessors required the lessee to vacate at the end of the term, he would be served with six months' notice ending with expiry; similarly, if the lessee was permitted to hold over after expiry, he was entitled to six months' notice before being asked to quit. The appellant constructed structures on part of the land and sublet the remaining portion as permitted. As the term was to expire on December 1, 1944, the appellant by letter dated November 30, 1944 exercised his option of renewal, offering to pay higher rent as received by lessors. Receiving no reply, he continued in possession and deposited rent. On May 26, 1945, the Wards Estate intimated that renewal was not sanctioned and demanded rent at Rs. 12/- per cottah per month plus selami of one year's rent. The appellant rejected this as excessive. Correspondence ended with notice dated October 14, 1946 stating that appellant was a trespasser and not entitled to any notice under lease, requiring him to deliver vacant possession within two weeks. On July 11, 1947, the Court of Wards filed a suit for ejectment and mesne profits in the First Court of Subordinate Judge, Alipore. The appellant contested, claiming valid exercise of option and illegal notice. While suit pending, Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 came into force. Parties agreed appellant was a thika tenant, and the suit was transferred to the Thika Controller under Section 29. The suit was assigned to the Fourth Court of Munsiff, Alipore, who was the Thika Controller. While pending, West Bengal Amendment Act VI of 1953 came into force on April 21, 1953, deleting Sections 28 and 29. Appellant applied on September 12, 1953 contending Controller lost jurisdiction; application was rejected. Respondents amended plaint on January 24, 1954 to include grounds (iv), (v) and (vi) of Section 3. Controller by judgment dated August 11, 1956 ordered eviction subject to compensation, holding appellant became trespasser and not entitled to notice. Appeal to Subordinate Judge dismissed, though one ground was rejected. High Court in Civil Revision No. 2612 of 1957 upheld eviction, holding jurisdiction saved and Section 3 dispensed with contractual notice. On appeal, Supreme Court considered two questions: jurisdiction after deletion of Section 29, and effect of Section 3 on contractual notice. Court held deletion of Section 29 did not affect pending proceedings due Section 8 of Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899; nothing in Amending Act indicated different intention, so Controller retained jurisdiction. On second question, Court held Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act did not confer additional rights on landlord but imposed restrictions on eviction; Section 3's non-obstante clause did not override the six months' notice requirement in Clause 7 of lease. Since six months' notice was admittedly not given, suit for eviction could not succeed. Accordingly, appeal was allowed and eviction decree set aside.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction - Effect of Repeal/Deletion of Enabling Provision on Pending Proceedings - Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, Sections 28, 29; Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899, Section 8 - Suit for eviction of thika tenant was transferred to Controller under Section 29 before its deletion by Amendment Act VI of 1953. The deletion did not contain a saving clause. Court applied Section 8 of Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899 and held that deletion would not affect previous operation of law or things duly done, hence Controller continued to have jurisdiction over the pending suit. Held that High Court correctly held Controller retained jurisdiction despite deletion of Section 29 (Paras 479 G). B) Rent Control and Eviction - Contractual Notice Requirement - Six Months' Notice to Quit Under Lease - Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, Section 3 - Lease clause required six months' notice before lessee could be required to vacate; landlord contended Section 3's non-obstante clause dispensed with such notice. Court held Thika Tenancy Act imposes restrictions on landlord's right to evict but does not confer additional rights or override contractual notice. The non-obstante clause only permits eviction on specified grounds after lawful termination of tenancy. Since no six months' notice was given, suit for eviction could not succeed. Held that Section 3 did not override contractual notice requirement; decree for eviction set aside (Paras 482 G).
Issue of Consideration
(1) Whether the Thika Controller under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 retained jurisdiction to try a suit pending before him after deletion of Section 29 by Amendment Act VI of 1953; (2) Whether Section 3 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 overrides the provision in a lease agreement requiring the landlord to give six months' notice to the tenant for termination of the lease.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the Controller retained jurisdiction over the suit despite deletion of Section 29. On merits, the Court held that the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act did not override the six months' notice requirement under the lease; since no such notice was given, the suit for eviction could not succeed. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the eviction decree was set aside.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Deletion of Section 29 by Amendment Act VI of 1953 does not affect pending proceedings before Thika Controller due Section 8 Bengal General Clauses Act
- 1899
- Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act
- 1949 Section 3 imposes restrictions on landlord's right to evict and does not override contractual six months' notice requirement
- non-obstante clause in Section 3 does not dispense with contractual notice
- eviction decree invalid without prior six months' notice under lease
