April, 1961 Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 354, 1962 SCR (2) 59 Bench: Sinha, B P. PETITIONER: SAKHARAM BAPUSAHEB NARAYAN SANAS AND ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: MANIKCHAND MOTICHAND SHAH AND ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/04/1961 BENCH: SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ) BENCH: SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ) SUBBARAO, K. DAYAL, RAGHUBAR CITATION: 1963 AIR 354 1962 SCR (2) 59 CITATOR INFO : E 1963 SC 358 (4,5) R 1966 SC 367 (6) O 1966 SC 538 (5,10) D 1966 SC1758 (11) R 1980 SC 101 (3) RF 1986 SC2204 (5) RF 1991 SC1538 (7) ACT: Agricultural Lands-Protected Tenants, Rights of-Acquisition under repealed statute-Repealing' statute, if affects such rights Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939 (Bom.29 of 1939), as amended by the Bombay Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1946 (Bom. 26 of 1946), S. 3A(1) Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Bom. LXVII of 1948), ss. 31, 88, 89. HEADNOTE: The appellants had acquired the rights of protected tenants under S. 3A(1) of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939, as amended by the Bombay Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1946, and their rights as protected tenants were recorded in the Record of Rights. That Act was repealed by the Bombay Tenancy
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, which by s. 31 recognised the rights of a protected tenant acquired under the Act of 1939 for its own purposes, by s. 88(1)(c) provided, that nothing in the foregoing provisions of the Act should apply to any area within the limits of the Municipal borough of Poona City and Suburban as also some other boroughs and within a distance of two miles of the limits of such boroughs, and by s. 89(2) that
rights of the appellants as protected tenants therein were. I affected by the repeal. Held, that the provisions of s. 88 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, are entirely prospective and apply to such lands as are described in cls. (a) to (d) of s. 88(1) from 60 the date on which the Act came into operation i.e. December 28, 1948, and are not of a confiscatory nature so as to take away from the tenant the status of a protected tenant already accrued to him. Section 89(2)(b) of the Act clearly intends to conserve such rights as were acquired or accrued before its commencement and that any legal proceeding in respect of such rights was to be disposed of in terms of the Act of 1939. Abbot v. The Minister for Lands,  A.C. 425, distin- guished. JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 185 of 1956. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated November 25, 1954, of the Bombay High Court in Second Appeal No. 1003 of 1952. H. R. Gokhale, J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellants
1961. April 19. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA, C. J.-The only question for determination in this appeal is whether the defendants-appellants are 'protected tenants' within the meaning of the Bombay Tenancy Act (Bombay Act XXIX of 1939) (which hereinafter will be referred to, for the sake of brevity, as the Act of 1939), whose rights as such were not affected by the repeal of that Act by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (Bombay Act LXVII of 1948) which hereinafter will be referred to as the Act of 1948). The Courts below have decreed the plaintiff's suit for possession of the lands in dispute, holding that the defendants were not entitled to the protection claimed by them as 'protected tenants'. This appeal is by special leave granted by this Court on April 4, 1965.