GOBINDA Vs. RAM PARSHAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY the facts of this case are as follows:

(2.) THE finding that the appellant was a sub -tenant was not challenged before me by the learned counsel for the appellant. The only contention raised by Mr. Sarin was that the sale in favour of the sub -tenant was protected under section 17 -A of the Act. On the other hand, Mr. Bahri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the word 'tenant' under section 17 -A of the Act did not include a sub -tenant and the vendee -appellant being admittedly a sub -tenant could not take advantage of the provisions of section 17 -A of the Act. Thus the short question that requires determination in this case, on respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, is whether the sale in favour of a sub -tenant is protected under section 17 -A of the Act or not and the answer to this question would depend upon the interpretation of section 17 -A which reads as follows :

(3.) THE word 'tenant' has been defined in section 2, sub -clause (6) and it includes a sub -tenant also. Under section 17 -A, the word 'tenant' occurs. In order to find out the meaning of the word 'tenant' occurring in section 17A, the meaning to be ordinarily given to it is that given in the definition clause; but this is not inflexible as it may have to be departed from on account of the subject or context in which the word has been used and that will be giving effect to the opening sentence in the definition section, namely, unless the context otherwise requires. It is a well -established rule of interpretation that even where the definition is exhaustive inasmuch as the word define is said to mean a certain thing, it is possible for the word to have a somewhat different meaning in different sections of the Act depending upon the subject or the context. So present is a case where endeavour is to find out the interpretation of the word 'tenant' occurring in section 17 -A of the Act.