JASIN TOMU DAMEL Vs. HARISCHANDRA PANDURANG MURANJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the original defendant against whom a decree has been passed by the Bombay City Civil Court in Summary Suit No. 1086 of 1953. The plaintiffs, who are members of a joint Hindu family, owned two pieces of unsurveyed Khoti land in the village of Paspoli situated in the suburbs of Bombay, In January 1946, the said lands were leased out to the present appellant for a period of three years ending on December 31, 1948, on a yearly rent of Rs. 260 and there is no dispute that the defendant took these lands for cultivating the same. The terms and conditions of the lease were recorded in an agreement dated January 15, 1946. Even after the expiry of the three years' period, defendant continued to hold the land on the same terms and conditions and it would appear that, in every December, plaintiff No. 1 agreed to extend the lease for one more year. In December 1952, it appears that the plaintiffs' family did not want to extend the lease and, therefore, by a letter dated December 11, 1952, defendant was called upon to vacate the lands and deliver quiet possession thereof to the plaintiffs. The defendant, however, replied by a letter dated December 22, 1952, alleging that he was a protected tenant and, therefore, not liable to be evicted. This claim of the defendant was denied by the plaintiffs by a letter dated December 29, 1952, and as the defendant did not deliver possession of the lands, the plaintiffs filed the present suit in the Bombay City Civil Court on May 26, 1953.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by the defendant on several grounds, but for the purpose of this appeal it may be mentioned that the principal contention raised by the defendant was that he was a protected tenant of the lands and by virtue of Section 89 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (67 of 1948), which will hereafter be referred to as the Tenancy Act of 1948, his rights as such protected tenant remained unaffected, he having become a protected tenant since November 8, 1947.

(3.) THE decision of the trial Court has been challenged by Mr. Joseph on behalf of the appellant on the ground that defendant's rights as a protected tenant under the Tenancy Act were not affected by any of the provisions of that Act as amended from time to time and, therefore, the decree for eviction passed against his client was erroneous. It is urged that defendant was let into possession as a tenant in January 1946 and continued in possession as a tenant till and after November 8, 1947, and by virtue of the Tenancy Act, he acquired the rights of a protected tenant. Paspoli, where the lands are situated, was not included in Greater Bombay when the Tenancy Act of 1948 came into force. It was by virtue of Act 8 of 1950 that the said village came to be included in Greater Bombay, but the defendant's rights as a protected tenant were not thereby affected or rendered illusory on account of Section 88(1)(c) of the Tenancy Act of 1948. That, in short, is the first branch of Mr. Joseph's argument on behalf of the defendant.