http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: NATHIA AGARWALLA & ANOTHER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MUSST.  JAHANARA BEGUM & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/03/1966

BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ) WANCHOO, K.N. SHAH, J.C. SIKRI, S.M.

CITATION:  1967 AIR   92            1966 SCR  (3) 926  CITATOR INFO :  F          1990 SC 879  (7)

ACT: Assam  Non-Agricultural  Urban Areas Tenancy Act,  1955,  s. 5(1)  (a)--protection to tenants  against  ejectment-whether available where decree for ejectment already obtained.

HEADNOTE: A decree for ejectment was passed against the appellants in November   1950  in  a  suit  filed  against  them  by   the respondents and was later confirmed by the High Court.   The execution proceedings began in August 1954 and were  pending when the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act 1955 came  into force from June 26, 1955.  The appellants  there- upon  claimed the benefit of s. 5(1) (a) of the  Act  (which grants  protection  from eviction to tenants  under  certain circumstances) on the ground that the protection of  Section 5  was available not only in pending suits and  appeals  but also in pending execution cases, This claim was rejected  by the execution Court and an appeal to the High Court was also dismissed. On appeal to this Court, HELD:     The  protection  under Section 5(1)  (a)  was  not available  where  a  decree in ejectment  had  already  been obtained. Section 5(1) begins by stating "notwithstanding anything  in any  contract or in any law for the time being in force  but it does not include decrees for ejectment already  obtained, in the non-obstante clause. Clause  (a)  of Section 5(1) protects tenants of  land  from ejectment by the landlord in those cases in which the tenant entitled  to  build  on ,the land  under  his  contract  has actually built a permanent structure within five years  from the  date of his contract, or has without such  right  built with  the knowledge and acquiescence of the landlord.   Such tenant  may not be ejected except for non-payment  of  rent. Clause  (a) applies alike to contracts made before or  after the commencement of the Act but as it intends to operate  on the  rights  of the landlord, rights  already  enforced  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

determined cannot be said to be involved and the clause must contemplate a suit and not execution proceedings. The  fact  that Section 14 of  the  Sylhet  Non-Agricultural Urban  Areas Tenancy Act 1947 repealed by the 1955  Act  and Section 6(1) of both Assam Act 13 of 1949 and Assam Act 3 of 1946  provided specially for execution  proceedings  clearly shows  that where the Assam Legislature wished  it  included execution proceedings within the protection. Suresh  Chandra  Datta v. Ashutosh Dutta and  Others  A.I.R. 1960 Assam 24, referred to. Comparing statute of different states is not to be commended because  similarity  or variation in the laws  of  different States  is  not  necessarily indicative of a  kindred  or  a changed  intention.  Enactments drafted by different  hands, at different times and to satisfy different requirements  of a  local  character. seldom afford tangible or sure  aid  in construction. [929 E-F; 930 E; 931 B-D] 927

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 893 of 1963 Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated August  14,  1959  of the Assam High Court  in  Appeal  from Original Order No. 21 of 1959. M.   C. Setalvad, B. P. Maheshwari and M. S. Narasimhan, for the  appellants. B.   Sen, and P. K. Ghosh, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidaytullah J. This is an appeal by special leave against an order  of the High Court of Assam dated August 14, 1959  re- jecting  summarily  an  appeal in an  execution  case.   The appellants  against whom the decree for ejectment  is  being executed are the widow and son of one Maliram Agarwala whose father  Arjun Das had taken on lease the suit land from  one Mohd.  Soleman, predecessor-in-interest of the  respondents. The decree was passed as far back as November 28, 1950 in  a title  suit  filed  against the  appellants  and  was  later confirmed by the High Court. The  present  execution  began on August 16,  1954  and  was pending  in  the  court of the  Subordinate  Judge,  L.A.D., Gauhati when the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas  Tenancy Act,  1955 (Assam Act 12 of 1955) came into force from  June 26,  1955.  The appellants thereupon claimed the benefit  of s.  5  of the Act which grants protection from  eviction  to tenants,  under certain circumstances.  The execution  Court heard  arguments  and  on November 12, 1957  held  that  the protection  of s. 5 was available not only in pending  suits and  appeals  but  also  in  pending  execution  cases.   In reaching  this  conclusion  the  learned  Judge  followed  a decision of the Assam High Court reported in Harsukh Saraqgi & Anr. v. Mashulal Khemani & Anr(1) and of the Calcutta High Court  in Habiba Bibi and others v. Ram Ranjan  Mullick  and others(2) He accordingly fixed the case for evidence to find out if there existed facts necessary for the application  of s.  5 of the Act.  Subsequently, the Presiding Judge  having changed,  the  point  was reopened on June 6,  1959  by  the successor  Judge.   That  learned Judge  following  a  later decision  of the Assam High Court (since reported in  Suresh Chandra Datta v. Ashutosh Dutta and others)(3) held that  s. 5(1)(a) was not applicable to execution proceedings and  the pending  execution must proceed according to law.  The  only question  in  this  case is whether  the  provisions  of  s. 5(1)(a)  of  the  Tenancy Act  apply  to  pending  execution

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

proceedings. The  Act  was passed "to regulate in  certain  respects  the relationship between landlord and tenant in respect of  non- agricultural (1) A.I.R. 1957 Assam 22.       (2) A.I.R. 1937 Cal 207. (3)  A.I.R. 1960 Assam 24. 928 land  in urban areas of the State of Assam." It consists  of 14  sections.   Section  5,  with  which  we  are  primarily concerned, may be read in full.    It reads :               "5.   Protection from eviction-               (1)   Notwithstanding anything in any contract               or               in any law for the time being in force-               (a)   where  under  the terms  of  a  contract               entered into between a landlord and his tenant               whether  before or after the  commencement  of               this  Act, a tenant is entitled to build,  and               has in pursuance of such terms actually  built               within the period of five years from the  date               of  such, contract, a permanent  structure  on               the  land  of the tenancy for  residential  or               business purposes, or where a tenant not being               so  entitled to build, has actually built  any               such structure on the land of the tenancy  for               any   of  the  purposes  aforesaid  with   the               knowledge  and acquiescence of  the  landlord,               the  tenant  shall  not  be  ejected  by   the               landlord from the tenancy except on the ground               of non-payment of rent;               (b)   where a tenant has effected improvements               on  the  land of the tenancy under  the  terms               whereof  he  is not entitled  to  effect  such               improvements, the tenant shall not be  ejected               by  the landlord from the land of the  tenancy               unless     compensation     for     reasonable               improvements has been paid to the tenant.               (2)   No  tenant  shall  be  ejected  by   his               landlord  from the land of the tenancy  except               in execution of a decree for ejectment  passed               by a competent civil court.               (3)   No  decree for ejectment passed  on  the               ground   of  non-payment  of  rent  shall   be               executed  within a period of thirty days  from               the date of the decree and if the tenant  pays               into the Court whose duty it is to execute the               decree  the  entire amount payable  under  the               decree within the aforesaid period, the  Court               shall record the decree as satisfied." The  remaining  sections may be shortly  noticed  before  we proceed  to construe s. 5. The first three sections  contain respectively the short title, the extent of application  and the  definitions  of terms in the Act.  Section  4  puts  an obligation upon a tenant to pay rent for his holding at fair and  equitable rates.  Section 6 lays down how  compensation for improvements in a suit for ejectment against a tenant is to be calculated and includes within improve- 929 ments  structures,  which the tenant entitled to  build  has actually built after the expiry of the period of five  years referred to in cl. (a)   of sub-s. (1) of s. 5. Sections  7, 8  and 9 deal with the question of enhancement of rent  from different   points  of  view.   Section  10  prohibits   the realisation  of any "salami".  Section II provides  that  no suit for ejectment, except for arrears of rent, shall be in-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

stituted  until after the expiration of one month  from  the date of the receipt of by the tenant of a notice in  writing by the landlord requiring the tenant to surrender possession of the land in favour of the landlord.  Section 12 shows how the  notices have to be served and s. 13 gives the power  to make  rules.   By s. 14, the Sylhet  Non-Agricultural  Urban Areas  Tenancy  Act,  1917,  (Assam  Act  10  of  1947)  was repealed. The  only question in this appeal is whether s.  5(1)(a)  of the  Act,  which  we  have  reproduced  above,  applies   to execution cases in respect of decrees for ejectment  granted before the coming into force of the Tenancy Act.  The answer to  this  question will determine which of  the  two  orders passed by the respective presiding Judges was right. Two  methods  of approach were adopted by  counsel  in  this appeal.  One was to construe the words of the fifth  section taken by themselves or in comparison with those employed  in other  Acts  of the Assam Legislature.  The  second  was  to compare and contrat s. 5 of the Assam Act with enactments In rent  control  Acts  of other States.   The  second  method, althoug  sometimes  instructive,  is  not  to  be  commended because  similarity  or variation in the laws  of  different States  is  not  necessarily indicative of a  kindred  or  a change intention.  Enactments drafted by different hands, at different  times and to satisfy different requirements of  a local  character,  seldom  afford tangible or  sure  aid  in construction.   We  would,  therefore, put  aside  the  Rent Control  Acts  of  Madras, Bihar, Delhi  and  other  States, because  in  these States the problem  of  accommodation  in relation  to  the availability of lands and houses  and  the prior legislative history and experience, cannot be same  as in  Assam.   We shall however, refer to other  Rent  Control Acts  of  the Assam Legislature because they do  not  suffer from  this  weakness  and may throw some light  on  how  the legislature was accustomed to view such matters.  But before we do so we shall consider s. 5 taken by itself. The section consists of three sub-sections and it is helpful to  view  the provisions backwards, that is, from  the  last subsection  to the first.  The third sub-section deals  with decree  of ejectment passed on the ground of  nonpayment  of rent.  It affords a last chance to the tenant to retain  the land of his tenancy by making such a decree unexecutable for a period of 30 days from its date so that the tenant may, if he cares, deposit 930 the  amount  of the decree in the court which  will  execute that  decree.   On  the  tenant so  paying,  the  decree  is recorded  as satisfied.  This sub-section must apply to  all executions which come within its terms because of the  clear language  "no  decree for ejectment shall be  executed"  and "the Court shall record the decree as satisfied".  These are peremptory  words  and they do not admit of  any  exception. All decrees for ejectment in which thirty days’ time had not passed  were affected but, it is clear, that  decrees  which did  not come within the terms of the  sub-section  remained executable. We  may now examine the second sub-section which also  takes away  some  rights  of landlords but  leaves  them  free  to execute decrees other than those on which the section places an embargo.  That sub-section provides that no tenant  shall be  ejected  by his landlord from the land  of  his  tenancy except  in execution of a decree for ejectment passed  by  a competent civil court.  Although this sub-section takes away the right of ejectment in other ways, if any, it  recognises that  ejectment is possible provided there is a decree of  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

competent civil court. We may now consider the first sub-section.  Certain  matters appear  on its face.  Ihe sub-section does not speak  of  an ejectment decree, but of the right of the landlord to  eject his tenant.  It begins by stating "notwithstanding  anything in  any contract or in any law for the time being in  force" but  it  does  not include  decrees  for  ejectment  already obtained,  in the non-obstante clause.  Such  decrees  could have   easily  been  named,  to  include  them  within   the protective  provisions,  but they were not.   The  operative parts   of  the  sub-section  protect  tenants   under   two circumstances  which are mentioned as (a) and  (b).   Taking (b)  first : if the tenant effects improvements on the  land which he is not     entitled to effect, the landlord may not eject him unless he pays reasonable compensation.  Who  will assess the compensation  is  laid  down  in s.  6  but  that section  specifically mentions a suit for ejectment and  not execution  proceeding.  All this seems to suggest that s.  5 (1)  (b)  is intended to operate on rights of  the  landlord which are being enforced by a suit but not on rights already enforced and determined.  By speaking of the curtailment  of the landlord’s right and by omitting to provide for  decrees into which the rights merge and by mentioning the provisions of  s.  6  are to be invoked in a  suit  for  ejectment,  it appears that the decrees as such are not put under the  same embargo. So far there is nothing in s. 5 which would suggest that its provisions  cover  decrees in which the  rights  had  passed before the coming into force of the Act.  It remains to  see whether s.     5 (1)(a) strikes a different note.  Part  (a) of s. 5 (1) is constructed 931 on  very  similar  lines  and does  not  admit  a  different approach.  It protects tenants of land from ejectment by the landlord  in  those cases in which the  tenant  entitled  to build  on the land under his contract has actually  built  a permanent  structure within five years from the date of  his contract, or has without such right built with the knowledge and  acquiescence of the landlord.  Such tenant may  not  be ejected except for non-payment of rent.  Clause (a)  applies alike to contracts made before or after the commencement  of the  Act.   This  creates some doubt but as  it  intends  to operate  on  the rights of the landlord seeking  to  enforce them against a tenant, who claims that he cannot be ejected, the  clause must again contemplate a suit and not  execution proceedings.   There is nothing to distinguish cl. (a)  from cl. (b) in so far as execution of decrees already granted is concerned. The  decision of the Assam High Court in Suresh  Chandra  v. Ashutosh  Dutta(1)  expressed the same conclusion but  on  a slightly  different  reasoning.  The conclusion  is  further strengthened  when  one reads the cognate  sections  of  the earlier Assam Acts passed by the same Legislature.   Section 14  of the Sylhet Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy  Act, 1947  (Assam Act 10 of 1947) now repealed by the Act we  are considering,  provided  in clear terms that  proceedings  in execution were included.  It reads as follows:               "14.  Pending suits.               The  provisions of this Act shall have  effect               in  respect  of all suits  or  proceedings  in               execution,  for  ejectment of  a  person,  who               would  under the provisions of this Act be  an               occupancy  tenant,  which are pending  at  the               date of commencement of this Act."               Similarly,  s. 6(1) of the Assam  Urban  Areas

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

             Rent  Control Act 1949 (Assam Act 13 of  1949)               and  s.  6(1) of the Assam  Urban  Areas  Rent               Control  Act,  1946  (Assam  Act  3  of  1946)               provided specially for execution  proceedings.               These two sections read the same and only  one               of them may be read.  Section 6 (1) of Act  13               of 1949 read:               "6.  Bar  against  passing  and  execution  of               decree and orders.               (a)   No  order or decree for the recovery  of               possession  of  any  house shall  be  made  or               executed  by any Court so long as  the  tenant               pays  rent to the full extent allowable  under               this  Act  and perform the conditions  of  the               tenancy:               (1)   A.I.R. 1960 Assam 24.               932               Provided that nothing in this subsection shall               apply in a suit or proceedings for eviction of               the tenant from the house-               (a)   where  the  tenant  has  done  any   act               contrary  to  the provisions  of  clause  (m),               clause (o) or clause (p) of section 108 of the               Transfer  of  Property  Act, 1882  or  to  the               spirit of the aforesaid clauses in areas where               the Act does not apply, or               (b)   where  the  tenant has  been  guilty  of               conduct which is a nuisance or an annoyance to               the occupiers of the adjoining or neighbouring               houses, or               (c)   where the house is bona fide required   by               the landlord either for purposes of repairs or               re-building, or for his own occupation or  for               the occupation of any person for whose benefit               the  house is held, or where the landlord  can               show any other cause which may be satisfactory               by the Court, or               (d)   where the tenant sublets the house or   any               part   thereof  or  otherwise  transfers   his               interest  in  the house or  any  part  thereof               without   permission  in  writing   from   the               landlord. These enactments, which are quite explicit, show that  where the   Assam   Legislature  wished  it   included   execution proceedings  within  the protection.  Being  aware  that  if execution  proceedings  are to be included they need  to  be mentioned and having at hand the former sections as  models, the departure appears to be deliberate.  The language chosen places  the  right under an embargo but does  not  say  that decrees  already won would become unexecutable thus  stating clearly  that  they were not to be affected.   The  decision under appeal was, therefore, right. The appeal has no force; it fails and will be dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. 933