ZOHRABI Vs. ARJUNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of a proceeding for ejectment under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The only question for consideration is whether the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Act as amended in 1960 would apply to this case. Section 28(1) of the Act reads:

(2.) The appellant was the owner of agricultural land measuring about 18 acres 13 gts. situated in a village in district Aurangabad. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was a tenant of the said land. On January 3, 1961 the appellant issued a notice under S. 19 (2) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 terminating the tenancy on the ground of non-payment of rent. The notice of termination was served on the tenant on January 11, 1961. The appellant applied for possession on October 30, 1961. The original tenant having died during the pendency of the proceeding, his heirs and legal representatives were substituted in his place. The Naib Tahsildar allowed the application for possession. From his order the tenants took an appeal to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Aurangabad which also failed. The tenants then preferred a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad. The Tribunal allowed the revision petition holding that the landlord not having given intimation to the tenant of the default within a period of six months of each default as required by the amended Section 28 of the Act, could not succeed. The appellant before us questions the propriety of the order passed by the Revenue Tribunal.

(3.) The only point urged on behalf of the appellant is that the amended S. 28 requiring the landholder to give notice to the tenant within a period of six months of each default was not applicable to the case because the tenant having defaulted in payment of rent for three years before the amended proviso to Section 28 (1) came into force on December 29, 1960, the landlord had acquired a right to institute a proceeding for the eviction of the tenants that could not be taken away by the amendment which was not given a retrospective operation either by express words or by necessary implication. We are unable to agree. It has been held ever since Abbot v. Minister of Land, 1895 AC 425 that a mere right to take advantage of the provisions of an Act is not an accrued right. Abbot's case (supra) was followed by this Court in a number of cases:Sakharam v. Manikchand, (1962) 2 SCR 59, Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. v. Haridas Mundhra, (1972) 3 SCR 690 and Lalji Raja and Sons v. Firm Hansraj Nathuram, (1971) 3 SCR 815. In the present case the application for possession was made long after the amendment came into force; even the right to institute a proceeding does not appear to have accrued before the amendment because the notice terminating the tenancy was also issued after the proviso was amended. There is no substance in the appeals which are dismissed with costs.