MATHURA NATH BANERJEE Vs. RAGHUNATH PROSAD GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case raises a question of construction of Section 30 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949. A small parcel of land adjoining premises Nos.86, 87 and 89 Khengra Patty Street now known as Purushottam Roy Street and belonging to the Board of Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta is held by Gope Krishna Arora, Mulchand Arora, Radha Krishna Arora and Jay Krishna Arora as tenants under the aforesaid Board of Trustees. The opposite party was a sub-tenant of the land under the Aroras. All the Aroras are parties to suit No.1100 of 1954 pending on the Original Side of this Court. The receiver of the tenancy raiyats of the Aroras in the land appointed in that suit instituted a proceeding under Section 5 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 before the Thika Controller for ejectment of the opposite party. The proceeding is being continued by the petitioner who is now the receiver appointed in Suit No. 1100 of 1954. On November 5, 1960 the Thika Controller passed an order for eviction of the opposite party. An appeal preferred from this order by the opposite party was summarily dismissed; but this order of dismissal was later set aside by this Court. Subsequently on December 6, 1961 the appellate authority reheard the appeal and by its order dated December 6, 1961 set aside the order of the Thika Controller and dismissed the proceeding. The petitioner now asks the Court to revise the order dated December 6, 1961. The appellate Authority held that land in dispute comes within Section 30(b)(iv) and 30(c) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 and as such the Thika Controller has no jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding. The first question in issue before us is whether the land is "vested in or in the possession of a local authority" within the meaning of Section 30(b)(iv) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949. The expression "local authority" is not defined in that Act. Unless there is something repugnant to the subject or context of Section 30 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 the expression "local authority" in that section must have the meaning given to it by Section 3(23) of the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899. Now Section 3(23) of the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899 corresponds to Section 3(31) of the Central General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 3(6) of the Central General Clauses Act, 1887, and is as follows : "Local authority shall mean a Municipal Committee, District Board, body of Port Commissioner or other authority legally entitled to, or entrusted by the Government with, the control or management of a municipal or local fund."

(2.) The point in issue is whether the Board of Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta is an "authority legally entitled to, or entrusted by the Government with the control or management of a municipal or local fund." Now the preamble of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 shows that the Act was passed to provide for the improvement and expansion of Calcutta. By Section 1(3), the Act extends to the Calcutta Municipality but the provisions of the Act may by subsequent notification be extended to contiguous areas. The Board of Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta constituted under the Act is the authority vested with the powers and charged with the duty of carrying out the improvement of the local area. The Board is authorised to levy duty and taxes within the area. Sections 115 to 124 and other sections of the Act show that the Board is also entitled to the control and management of a fund derived from contributions from the municipal funds, taxes, grants from Government, betterment fees, loans, rents and income from properties and other sources. The entire fund is set apart for the benefit of the local area. By Section 177 of the Act on dissolution of the Board all properties and funds vested in the Board shall vest in the Corporation of Calcutta. Sections 4, 37, 54, 88 and 105 of the Act show that the Calcutta municipal authorities are otherwise intimately connected with the funds and properties of the Board. In all these circumstances I am satisfied that the fund vested in the Board is a local fund. The Board is therefore a body legally entitled to the control and management of the local fund and accordingly it satisfies the test of a local authority given in Section 3(23) of the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899.

(3.) The Board is not expressly mentioned in the definition of the expression "local authority" in Section 3(23) of the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899, Section 3(31) of the Central General Clauses Act, 1897 and section 3(6) of the Central General Clause Act, 1887 because the Board was constituted long after those Acts we passed. For this reason by way of abundant caution several Acts, e.g., the explanation to Section 1(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 give inclusive definitions of the expression so as to expressly include the Board within it. Again for purposes of acquisition of land for the Board, a similar inclusive definition is inserted in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by Section 71 of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 read with the schedule to it. The Local Authorities Loans Act, 1954 (Act IX of 1954) by Section 2 gives its own special definition of the expression "local authority" and that definition does not expressly include the Board, Section 6 of the Act read with the schedule thereto refers to the Board as a local authority. But the point in issue is whether apart from these inclusive or special definitions, the Board satisfies the test of local authority as defined in Section 3(23) of the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899. In my opinion, the Board satisfies that test. In this connection it is interesting to notice that sub-section (7) of Section 83 and sub-section (3) of Section 84 of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 providing for the continuance of the tax and the duty leviable under Sections 83 and 84 of that Act were inserted by the Adaptation of Indian Laws Order, 1937 upon the assumption that the Board levying the aforesaid tax and duty is a local authority or body as contemplated by Section 143(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935 and similar adaptations were made in those sections by the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950 upon the footing that the Board is a local authority or body as contemplated by Article 277 of the Constitution of India.