Structured Summary of the Provided Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner (plaintiff) instituted a suit for ejectment on 9 April 1948 alleging five months' rent was due and that a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act required the defendant to vacate after October 1947. The plaint also alleged the tenant occupied under two leases which expired at the end of October 1947, although the original plaint itself did not refer to the leases. The suit was compromised and a consent decree was passed on 15 July 1948 on specified terms: plaintiff to obtain an ejectment decree with costs and recovery of Rs.125 (arrears) and Rs.40 (damages); defendant given option to remain until 15 October provided certain conditions were met; plaintiff to pay Rs.500 for remainder and an extra Rs.250 if tenant vacated in accordance with terms; the decretal amounts were to be deemed fully satisfied if terms were complied with; if not complied with, the decree would remain in full force.

The tenant failed to vacate in accordance with the terms, although the plaintiff deposited Rs.750 in Court. The Calcutta Thicca Tenancy Act came into force on 28 February 1949. Thereafter the tenant applied under section 28 of that Act and the Munsif allowed the application, rescinding the compromise decree. The present proceeding is a rule against that order of the Munsif rescinding the decree under section 28 of the Calcutta Thicca Tenancy Act, 1949.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Munsif had power under section 28 of the Calcutta Thicca Tenancy Act to rescind a pre-Act consent decree for ejectment.
Whether the Munsif's interpretation that the Act should be treated as governing the suit as though it had been in force at the time of institution or decree (i.e., retrospective application) was correct.
Whether the notice given to the tenant complied with section 4 of the Act (requiring at least one month's written notice expiring with the month of tenancy), as relied upon by the Munsif to justify rescission.
Whether the order of the Munsif under section 28 rescinding the decree constituted a decree appealable to the District Judge.
Whether a consent decree made before the commencement of the Act can be set aside under the Act (in light of section 31 and related provisions) and how the principle applied in earlier cases (e.g., consent decrees under the Calcutta House Rent Control Order) bears on that question.
Whether the defendant/tenant was properly shown to be a "thicca tenant" within the meaning of section 2(5) of the Act, as required for claiming benefits under the Act.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Haji Mohammad Akramal Huq v. Rebati Bhusan Mukherjee	Consideration of whether a consent decree can be set aside under provisions similar to section 9B(3) of the Calcutta House Rent Control Order; principle that a consent decree may be upset only where the decree or proceedings show the real ground for eviction was non-payment of rent (a ground which under the new law would be insufficient if arrears were paid).	The court applied the principle to the present case and concluded that even on that principle the consent decree here would not be upset because the decree was founded on notice and arrears (and there was no agreement by the tenant to overlook any then-applicable notice requirement). Thus the Munsif erred in rescinding the decree on the ground relied upon.
Shaikh Mohammad Maten v. Baijnath Bajoria	Authority that before a tenant can claim benefits under the Calcutta Thicca Tenancy Act, he must show he is a "thicca tenant" within the meaning of section 2(5) of the Act (i.e., holds under systems described in that definition).	The court cited this decision to note that the learned Munsif had assumed without investigation that the defendant was a thicca tenant; the court held that the question should be investigated and that prior authorities' view that a tenant must show he falls within section 2(5) should be followed.
Murari Mohan Mukherjee v. Prakash Chandra Chatterjee	Same principle as above: requirement that a tenant prove he is a "thicca tenant" under section 2(5) to claim Act's benefits.	The court relied on this case alongside Shaikh Mohammad Maten to require that the Munsif investigate whether the defendant actually belonged to the category defined in section 2(5) before allowing the tenant to claim benefits under the Act.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded through a sequence of legal analyses, applying statutory language and precedent to the facts:

Power under section 28: The court recognized that section 28 gives the Munsif power to rescind a decree if he is "of opinion that the decree or order was not in conformity with any provisions of this Act other than sub-sec. (1) of sec. 5 or sec. 27." The Munsif had exercised that statutory power.
Interpretation advanced by the Munsif: The Munsif interpreted section 28 as requiring him to treat the suit as though it were wholly governed by the Act even though the Act was not in force at the time of institution or at the time of the decree. The Munsif considered the decree potentially non-conforming because the notice given (a postal notice and a registered notice allegedly refused) did not, in his view, satisfy the one-month written notice requirement of section 4 of the Act.
Appealability preliminary point: The court rejected the contention that the Munsif's order under section 28 was a decree appealable to the District Judge. The court explained that section 28 confers a special statutory and extraordinary power, and an appeal would only lie if the Act itself created an appellate right.
Consent decree and section 31: The court emphasized the special feature that the decree was a consent decree made prior to the Act. Section 31 provides that nothing in any contract between a landlord and a thicca tenant after commencement of the Act shall take away or limit tenants' rights, but by implication a contract (including a consent decree) made prior to the Act is not barred by that provision. Thus pre-Act contracts/decrees can continue to operate.
Comparison of sections 28 and 29: The court noted important textual differences between section 28 (rescission of pre-Act decrees not executed) and section 29 (pending suits and execution proceedings). Section 29 directs the Controller to deal with transferred pending cases "as if this Act had been in operation on the date of institution." Section 29 specifically excludes the operation of section 4 (notice requirement), whereas section 28 does not. Conversely, section 28 excludes sub-section (1) of section 5 (proceedings before Controller) and section 27 (appeal, review and execution), whereas section 29 does not. The court observed these exceptions will need to be considered in due course to interpret exactly what section 28 means, but did not adopt the Munsif's broad retrospective application.
Application of precedent on consent decrees: Using the reasoning in Haji Mohammad Akramal Huq v. Rebati Bhusan Mukherjee, the court noted that a consent decree should be set aside only where the decree or the proceedings show the real ground of eviction was non-payment of rent (a ground that would be insufficient if arrears had been paid under the new Act). Applying that principle, the court concluded the consent decree in this case could not properly be upset because it rested on a ground (notice) and on arrears; there was no agreement by the tenant to overlook any notice deficiency that was not a requirement at the time of the decree.
Notice requirement issue: The court stressed that the one-month notice now required by section 4 could not have been contemplated by the parties when the consent decree was made, because that requirement did not exist before the Calcutta Thicca Tenancy Act came into force. Consequently, the Munsif's reliance on an assumed deficiency of one month's notice, applying the post-Act standard to a pre-Act agreement, was erroneous.
Thicca tenant status: The court noted authorities requiring a tenant to show that he is a "thicca tenant" under section 2(5) before claiming benefits. The learned Munsif had assumed without inquiry that the defendant was such a tenant; the court held that the question should be investigated if relevant and remitted for consideration.
Conclusion of error: For these reasons the court concluded the learned Munsif erred in his interpretation and in rescinding the decree.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Rule is made absolute; the order of the learned Munsif rescinding the decree is set aside.

Implications:

The case is remitted to the learned Munsif for disposal in accordance with section 28 of the Calcutta Thicca Tenancy Act, namely by transferring it to the Controller for execution under the Act.
The court made no order as to costs.
The court did not purport to lay down an exhaustive new precedent on all interpretive questions; it noted that certain textual differences between sections 28 and 29 and the meaning of various exceptions in section 28 will require consideration in due course. The decision's immediate effect is to reverse the Munsif's rescission and to remit the matter for proper application of section 28 and for any necessary factual inquiries (including whether the defendant qualifies as a "thicca tenant" under section 2(5)).

Judge: N.D.R.

Show full summary ...

Panchanon Shaw Decree-Holder, v. Satyabandhu Mukherjee Judgment-Debtor, Opposite Party.

1. This is a rule against an order of the Munsif, 1st Court Alipore, purporting to be under sec. 28 of the Calcutta Thicca Tenancy Act, 1949, rescinding a compromise decree for ejectment made in the suit before him on the 15th July, 1948. The Petitioner here as Plaintiff, brought a suit on the 9th April, 1948, for ejectment of the Opposite Party alleging that five months' rent was due and also that notice under sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act had been served requiring the Defendant to vacate on the expiry of the month of October, 1947. It may be noted that in his petition the Petitioner alleges that the tenant was in occupation on two leases which expired with the month of October, 1947, and that the notice in question was merely issued out of abundant caution. No reference to the fact of the leases, however, was made in the original suit: The suit was compromised and the decree passed in accordance with the terms thereof. These were briefly: the Plaintiff was to get a decree for ejectment with costs and also a decree for Rs. 125 on account of arrears of rent and Rs. 40 as damages but the Defendant was given an option to remain on the land until the 15th of October and give up peaceful possession by removing some of the structures. For the remainder the Plaintiff was to pay Rs. 500. Further, if the tenant vacated in accordance with the terms he was to get an extra Rs. 250 as compensation and then the decree was to have no effect. The decretal amount for arrears of rent, damages and costs was to be deemed fully satisfied. If the terms were not complied with, the decree was to remain in full force and effect. The tenant did not vacate and comply with the terms of the contract, although the Plaintiff deposited Rs. 750 in Court. On the 28th February, 1949, the Calcutta Thicca Tenancy Act came into force and thereafter the tenant made an application under sec. 28 thereof and the Munsif has allowed the application and rescinded the decree.

2. The Munsif had power under sec. 28 of the Act to rescind the decree if he was “of opinion that the decree or order was not in conformity with any provisions of this Act other than sub-sec. (1) of sec. 5 or sec. 27.”

3. The Munsif has interpreted this to mean that he is to treat the suit as though wholly governed by the provisions of the Act although the Act was not in force either at the time of institution of the suit or at the time of the decree. He has held that although strictly speaking the decree could not be said to have been made on the ground of existence of arrears of rent, a ground which in sec. 3 (1) of the Act has been now made one of the grounds for eviction, nevertheless, as there was a claim for arrears and a decree for arrears, he thought that the decree was even on his interpretation in this respect in conformity with the provisions of the Act. He has, however, held that it is not in conformity with the provisions of the Act because the notice given as appears from the record was not in accordance with the provisions of sec. 4 of the Act which requires at least one month's notice in writing expiring with the month of tenancy. A notice was sent by ordinary post on the 30th September, and there was a registered notice the receipt whereof shows that the notice was refused on the second of October. Without going into the question further, the Munsif has assumed that this shows that at least one month's notice was not in fact given.

4. A preliminary point was taken against this application in revision on the ground that the order of the Munsif under sec. 28 rescinding the decree was itself a decree and was, therefore, appealable to the District Judge. In my opinion the contention is not sound. The power given under sec. 28 is a special and extraordinary statutory power given by the statute and an appeal would only lie in my opinion if special provisions were given by the Act for an appeal creating a power.

5. Many points were canvassed before me which I do not think it necessary to discuss. In my opinion the special feature of this case is that the decree in question was a consent decree and although sec. 31 of the Act specially provides that nothing in any contract between a landlord and a thicca tenant after the commencement of the Act shall take away or limit the rights of the tenants by implication there is no bar in the case of a contract made as in the case of this consent decree, prior to the commencement of the Act.

6. In a proper case it will be necessary to consider what exact difference was intended by the legislature between the provisions of sec. 28 which deals with rescinding pre-Act decrees which had not been executed, and sec. 29 which deals with pending suits and proceedings in execution (necessarily of pre-Act decrees). The latter enjoins the Controller on transfer of the pending case “to deal with it in accordance with the provisions of this Act as if this Act had been in operation on the date of institution of the suit or proceedings.” Sec. 29 also specifically makes a proviso excluding the operation of sec. 4 requiring notice whereas no such exclusion is made in sec. 28: on the other hand, sec. 28 excludes sub-sec. (1) of sec. 5 (which requires proceedings in ejectment to be instituted before the Controller) whereas sec. 29 makes no such exclusion. Sec. 28 again excludes sec. 27 which deals with appeal, review and execution. How this section could ever have been thought to have had any bearing on any question of rescinding a pre-Act decree is beyond my comprehension, but the fact that these exceptions were inserted in sec. 28 will in due course have to be considered in time to interpret exactly what sec. 28 means.

7. In any view of sec. 28 I cannot see how it can be said in view of the provisions of sec. 31 that a consent decree even if in some points it is not in conformity with the act is not in a broader sense in conformity with the Act in the view that pre-Act contracts may exist having the effect of barring the provisions of the Act. The question of whether a consent decree could be set aside under sec. 9B (3) of the Calcutta House Rent Control Order, 1943, was considered in the case of Haji Mohammad Akramal Huq v. Rebati Bhusan Mukherjee.(1) in which reference was made to previous cases some of which were dissented from The wording of that section is of course different from the wording of either sec. 28 or sec. 29 of the Calcutta Thicca Tenancy, but the view was held that the consent decree could only be set aside where either the decree or the proceedings in the suit show that the real ground on which the landlord sought eviction was non-payment of rent by the tenant, that is to say, where the tenant had agreed to a decree being made on the ground which was specifically not a sufficient ground under the new Act if arrears had been paid up. Even applying the principle in the present case it would not operate to upset the decree passed. The decree in the case was passed on the ground that proper notice giving at least 15 days' notice had been given to the tenant. There was also the fact, which has now become a “ground,” namely, that there were arrears of rent. There was no agreement by the tenant to overlook the fact that full one month's notice had not been given to him as now required by sec. 4 of the Act. The question of one month's; notice could never have been present to the minds of the parties for the simple reason that until the Calcutta Thicca Tenancy Act was passed there never was any such requirement of notice. Hence for both the reasons I hold that the learned Munsif was in error in his interpretation of the Calcutta Thicca Tenancy Act and should not have rescinded the decree.

8. It remains to mention one other point arising out of decision in the cases of Shaikh Mohammad Maten v. Baijnath Bajoria(2) and Murari Mohan Mukherjee v. Prakash Chandra Chatterjee(3) where it has been held that before a tenant can claim any of the benefits of the Calcutta Thicca Tenancy Act he is required to show that he is a thicca tenant within the meaning of sec. 2 (5) of the Act which requires him to show that he holds “under the system commonly known as “thicca,” thicca masik udbandi, thicca masik, thicca bastu or any other like system. The learned Munsif has simply assumed without further investigation that the Defendant was such a tenant. It was suggested in argument before me that the use of the word system in sec. 3 (4) shows that the wording as used in the Act has a somewhat colourless connotation, and that too much stress has been laid in the cases cited on the use of the word in the definition of thicca tenant. The practical difficulty seems to be that nobody but the draftsman apparently knows of any real system and, therefore, it is a matter of some practical difficulty for any thicca tenant commonly understood as such to show that he is a thicca tenant within the meaning of the definition. It is true that on the other side of the picture unless some distinction is made then all monthly tenants of many different kinds of premises which nobody could think of describing as thicca tenants may bring themselves under the provisions of the Act, provided they put up a suitable shed or two on some open space attached to the premises. These are matters for the legislature. I see no reason to differ from the view expressed in the cases cited so that even had I been disposed on other grounds to allow this rule it would have been necessary to have sent the case back for the learned Munsif to see if this particular thicca tenant could succeed in showing that belonged to that apparently rare (if at all existent) variety defined in sec. 2 (5) of the Act.

9. The result is that this Rule is made absolute. The order of the learned Munsif rescinding the decree is set aside. The case will go back to him for disposal in accordance with the provisions of sec. 28, namely, by transferring it to the Controller for execution under the Act. I make no order as to costs.

N.D.R

Panchanon Shaw Decree-Holder, v. Satyabandhu Mukherjee Judgment-Debtor, Opposite Party.

Structured Summary of the Provided Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Panchanon Shaw Decree-Holder, v. Satyabandhu Mukherjee Judgment-Debtor, Opposite Party.

Comments