{"id":70902,"date":"1961-04-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-04-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakharam-bapusaheb-narayan-sanas-vs-manikchand-motichand-shah-and-on-19-april-1961"},"modified":"2016-06-23T14:37:28","modified_gmt":"2016-06-23T09:07:28","slug":"sakharam-bapusaheb-narayan-sanas-vs-manikchand-motichand-shah-and-on-19-april-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakharam-bapusaheb-narayan-sanas-vs-manikchand-motichand-shah-and-on-19-april-1961","title":{"rendered":"Sakharam Bapusaheb Narayan Sanas … vs Manikchand Motichand Shah And … on 19 April, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sakharam Bapusaheb Narayan Sanas … vs Manikchand Motichand Shah And … on 19 April, 1961<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 354, \t\t 1962 SCR (2)\t 59<\/div>\n
Author: B P Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSAKHARAM  BAPUSAHEB NARAYAN SANAS AND ANOTHER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMANIKCHAND MOTICHAND SHAH AND ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n19\/04\/1961\n\nBENCH:\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nBENCH:\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nSUBBARAO, K.\nDAYAL, RAGHUBAR\n\nCITATION:\n 1963 AIR  354\t\t  1962 SCR  (2)\t 59\n CITATOR INFO :\n E\t    1963 SC 358\t (4,5)\n R\t    1966 SC 367\t (6)\n O\t    1966 SC 538\t (5,10)\n D\t    1966 SC1758\t (11)\n R\t    1980 SC 101\t (3)\n RF\t    1986 SC2204\t (5)\n RF\t    1991 SC1538\t (7)\n\n\nACT:\nAgricultural Lands-Protected Tenants, Rights  of-Acquisition\nunder  repealed statute-Repealing' statute, if affects\tsuch\nrights Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939 (Bom.29 of 1939), as amended\nby  the\t Bombay Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1946  (Bom.  26  of\n1946), S. 3A(1) Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands  Act,\n1948 (Bom.  LXVII of 1948), ss. 31, 88, 89.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellants had acquired the rights of protected  tenants\nunder  S. 3A(1) of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939, as  amended\nby  the\t Bombay\t Tenancy (Amendment) Act,  1946,  and  their\nrights\tas protected tenants were recorded in the Record  of\nRights.\t  That\tAct was repealed by the Bombay\tTenancy\t and\nAgricultural Lands Act, 1948, which by s. 31 recognised\t the\nrights of a protected tenant acquired under the Act of\t1939\nfor its own purposes, by s. 88(1)(c) provided, that  nothing\nin  the foregoing provisions of the Act should apply to\t any\narea  within the limits of the Municipal borough  of  Poona\nCity  and Suburban as also some other boroughs and within  a\ndistance of two miles of the limits of such boroughs, and by\ns. 89(2) that\n\"nothing in this Act or any repeal effected  thereby ...\n(b) shall, save as expressly provided in this Act, affect or\nbe deemed to affect\n(i)  any  right, title, interest,  obligation  or  liability\nalready\t  acquired,   accrued\tor   incurred\tbefore\t the\ncommencement of this Act,\nor  ....................................................\nor ......................................................\n(ii)  any legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any\tsuch\nright, title, interest, obligation, or liability or anything\ndone  or suffered before the commencement of this  Act,\t and\nany  such proceeding shall be continued and disposed of,  as\nif this Act was not passed\nThe  lands in dispute were situated within two miles of\t the\nlimits\tof the Poona Municipal Borough, i.e. Poona City\t and\nSuburban,  and\tthe question was whether the rights  of\t the\nappellants as protected tenants therein were.  I affected by\nthe repeal.\nHeld, that the provisions of s. 88 of the Bombay Tenancy and\nAgricultural  Lands Act, 1948, are entirely prospective\t and\napply  to such lands as are described in cls. (a) to (d)  of\ns. 88(1) from\n60\nthe date on which the Act came into operation i.e.  December\n28, 1948, and are not of a confiscatory nature so as to take\naway  from  the\t tenant the status  of\ta  protected  tenant\nalready accrued to him.\nSection 89(2)(b) of the Act clearly intends to conserve such\nrights\tas were acquired or accrued before its\tcommencement\nand that any legal proceeding in respect of such rights\t was\nto be\tdisposed of in terms of the Act of 1939.\nAbbot  v. The Minister for Lands, [1995] A.C.  425,  distin-\nguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 185 of 1956.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and decree  dated
\nNovember 25, 1954, of the Bombay High Court in Second Appeal
\nNo. 1003 of 1952.\n<\/p>\n
H.   R.\t Gokhale, J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley,  Rameshwar
\nNath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
C.   B.\t Agarwala and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the  respondent
\nNo. 1.\n<\/p>\n
1961.  April 19.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSINHA,\tC.  J.-The only question for determination  in\tthis
\nappeal\tis whether the defendants-appellants are  ‘protected
\ntenants’  within  the  meaning of  the\tBombay\tTenancy\t Act
\n(Bombay\t Act  XXIX  of\t1939)  (which  hereinafter  will  be
\nreferred  to, for the sake of brevity, as the Act of  1939),
\nwhose rights as such were not affected by the repeal of that
\nAct by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (Bombay
\nAct LXVII of 1948) which hereinafter will be referred to  as
\nthe  Act  of  1948).   The Courts  below  have\tdecreed\t the
\nplaintiff’s  suit  for possession of the lands\tin  dispute,
\nholding\t that  the  defendants\twere  not  entitled  to\t the
\nprotection  claimed  by them as ‘protected  tenants’.\tThis
\nappeal is by special leave granted by this Court on April 4,
\n1965.\n<\/p>\n
The facts of this case are not in dispute.  Shortly  stated,
\nthey are as follows.  By virtue of a lease dated October 30,
\n1939, the defendants obtained a lease of the disputed  lands
\nfrom  the  plaintiff for a period of 10 years,\texpiring  on
\nOctober 30, 1949.  The lands in
\n61<\/span>
\ndispute\t have  been  found to lie within two  miles  of\t the
\nlimits\tof Poona Municipality.\tThe landlord gave notice  on
\nOctober\t 22, 1948, terminating the tenancy as  from  October
\n30,  1949.   As the defendants did not vacate the  land,  in
\nterms of the notice aforesaid, the plaintiff instituted\t the
\nsuit  for ejectment in the Court of the Civil Judge,  Junior
\nDivision, at Poona in Civil Suit No. 86 of 1950.  The Act of
\n1939  became law on March 27, 1940, but the Act was  applied
\nto  Poona area with effect from April 11, 1946.\t Under s.  3
\nof  the\t Act, a tenant shall be deemed to be a\t‘  protected
\ntenant’\t in  respect of any land if he has  hold  such\tland
\ncontinuously  for  a  period  of not  less  than  six  years
\nimmediately preceding either the first day of January, 1938,
\nor  the first day of January, 1945, (added by  the  Amending
\nAct of 1946) and has cultivated such land personally  during
\nthe  aforesaid period.\tIt is not disputed that\t the  defen-
\ndants-appellants became entitled to the status of ‘protected
\ntenants’ as a result of the operation of the Act, as amended
\nby the Bombay Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1946 (Bombay Act XXVI
\nof  1946), and under s. 3A(1) the defendants were deemed  to
\nbe  ‘protected\ttenants’ under the Act and their  rights  as
\nsuch were recorded in the Record of Rights.  Sections 3\t and
\n3A(1), aforesaid, are set out below:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “3. A tenant shall be deemed to be a protected
\n\t      tenant in respect of any land if\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   he has held such land continuously for a
\n\t      period of not less than six years\t immediately
\n\t      preceding either\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)   the first day of January 1938 or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  the first day of January 1945 and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   has\t cultivated  such  land\t  personally
\n\t      during
\n\t      the aforesaid period.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      3A(1) Every tenant shall, on the expiry of one
\n\t      year from the date of the coming into force of
\n\t      the  Bombay Tenancy Amendment Act of 1946,  be
\n\t      deemed  to  be  a\t protected  tenant  for\t the
\n\t      purposes\tof this Act and his rights  as\tsuch
\n\t      protected\t tenant\t shall be  recorded  in\t the
\n\t      Record of\t Rights, unless his  landlord  has
\n\t      within the said period made an application to
\n\t      62<\/span>
\n\t      the  Mamlatdar within whose  jurisdiction\t the
\n\t      land  is situated for a declaration  that\t the
\n\t      tenant is not a protected tenant”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Under  s.  3A(1)  aforesaid, it was open  to  the  landlord,
\nwithin\tone  year  of the date of the  commencement  of\t the
\nAmending  Act  of  1946,  to  make  an\tapplication  to\t the
\nMamlatdar  for\ta  declaration that the\t tenant\t was  not  a
\n‘protected tenant’.  No such proceeding appears to have been
\ntaken.\t As  a\tresult of the expiration of  one  year\tfrom
\nNovember 8, 1946the date of the coming into operation of the
\nAmending  Act  of  1946-the defendants\twere  deemed  to  be
\n‘protected  tenants’ and it is not disputed that  they\twere
\nrecorded  as such.  Section 4 of the Act, with which we\t are
\nnot  concerned in the present case, made further  provisions
\nfor  recovery of possession by tenants who had been  evicted
\nfrom  their  holdings  in  circumstances  set  out  in\tthat
\nsection.  The Act, therefore, in its terms, was intended for
\nthe  protection of tenants in certain areas in the  Province
\nof Bombay (as it then was).  If nothing had happened  later,
\nthe  defendants\t would\thave had the  status  of  ‘protected
\ntenants’  and  could  not  have\t been  evicted\tfrom   their
\nholdings,  except in accordance with the provisions  of\t the
\nTenancy Law.  But the Act of 1939 was replaced by the Act of
\n1948.\tThe  question that arises now for  determination  is
\nwhether the Act of 1948 wiped out the defendant’s status  as
\n‘protected tenants’.  For determining this question, we have
\nnaturally  to examine the relevant provisions of  the  later
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
The Act of 1948, by s. 2 cl. (14) prior to its amendment  by
\nBombay\tAct XIII of 1956, provides that ” protected  tenant’
\nmeans  a person who is recognised to be a  protected  tenant
\nunder section 31″.  Section 31 runs as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “For the purposes of this Act, a person  shall
\n\t      be recognised to be a protected tenant if such
\n\t      person  has  been\t deemed to  be\ta  protected
\n\t      tenant under section 3, 3A or 4 of the  Bombay
\n\t      Tenancy Act, 1939.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  force  and effect of s. 31\t will have to  be  discussed
\nlater while dealing with the arguments raised
\n\t\t\t     63<\/span>
\non  behalf  of the landlord-respondent.\t The  next  relevant
\nprovisions of the Act of 1948 are those of s.\t  88(1)(c)
\nwhich reads:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Nothing\tin the foregoing provisions of\tthis
\n\t      Act shall apply:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       …………………………………
\n\t       ……………………………………….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   to any area within the limits of Greater
\n\t      Bombay and within the limits of the  municipal
\n\t      boroughs\t of   Poona   City   and   Suburban,
\n\t      Ahmedabad,  Sholapur,  Surat  and\t Hubli\t and
\n\t      within  a distance of two miles of the  limits
\n\t      of such boroughs; or………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
As  already  observed, the lands in dispute in\tthe  present
\ncontroversy  have been found to be situate within two  miles
\nof the limits of the Poona Municipal Borough, which, for the
\npurpose of this case, has been equated to ‘Borough of  Poona
\nCity and Suburban’.  It has been contended on behalf of\t the
\nrespondent  that under the later Act the disputed lands\t are
\noutside\t the  purview of the Act and  that,  therefore,\t the
\ndefendants-appellants  are not entitled to claim the  status
\nof  ‘protected tenants’.  The appellants have answered\tthis
\ncontention  by reference to the provisions of s.  89,  which
\nmay now be set out (in so far as they are necessary for\t the
\npurpose of this case):-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “89(1) The enactment specified in the Schedule
\n\t      is hereby repealed to the extent mentioned  in
\n\t      the fourth column thereof
\n\t      (2)   But\t nothing in this Act or\t any  repeal
\n\t      effected
\n\t      thereby-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       ………………………………….`…\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b) shall, save as expressly provided in\tthis
\n\t      Act, affect or be deemed to affect,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)   any\t right, title, interest,  obligation
\n\t      or  liability  already  acquired,\t accrued  or
\n\t      incurred before the commencement of this\tAct,
\n\t      or-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  any\t  legal\t proceeding  or\t remedy\t  in
\n\t      respect  of any such right,  title,  interest,
\n\t      obligation,  or liability or anything done  or
\n\t      suffered before the commencement of this\tAct,
\n\t      and any such proceeding shall be continued and
\n\t      disposed\t of,   as  if  this  Act   was\t not
\n\t      passed ……”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      64<\/span><\/p>\n
It  has been contended on behalf of the appellants that\t the
\nrepealing s. 89, read with the Schedule, makes it clear that
\nthe whole of ss. 3, 3A and 4 of the Act of   1939 have\tbeen
\nsaved,\tsubject\t to  certain modifications,  which  are\t not
\nrelevant to the present purpose; and that sub-s. 2(b) of  s.
\n89 has in terms, saved the appellants’ rights as  ‘protected
\ntenants’  because those rights had already accrued  to\tthem
\nunder the Act of 1939.\tBut this contention is countered  by
\nthe  learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent  on  three
\ngrounds, namely, (1) that s. 88 expressly provides that\t ss.
\n1 to 87 of the later Act shall not apply to lands situate in
\nthe Municipal Borough of Poona City and Suburban and  within
\na  distance of two miles of the limits of such borough;\t (2)
\nthat  what has been saved by cl. (b) of sub-s. (2) of s.  89
\nis not every right but only such rights as had been actually
\nexercised and recognised; and (3)  that\t the  terms  of\t the
\nsaving clause, as contained s.\t   89(2)(b)\twere\t not
\nidentical  with\t s.  7 of the Bombay  General  Clauses\tAct,
\ninasmuch   as  cl.  (b)\t aforesaid  only  speaks   of\tsuch
\nproceedings   being  continued\tand  disposed  of,   without
\nreference to the institution of such proceedings.
\nShortly\t put, the arguments on behalf of the  appellants  is
\nthat  the taking away of the status of a  protected  tenant’
\nfrom  certain  lands,  as  specified  in  s.  88,  is\tonly
\nprospective  and not retrospective, whereas the argument  on
\nbehalf\tof  the\t respondent  is that  the  repeal  was\twith
\nretrospective  effect  and only so much was saved  as  would
\ncome  directly within the terms of el. (b) of s. 89(2),\t and
\nthat  the  right claimed by the appellants  was\t in  express
\nterms taken away by s. 88.\n<\/p>\n
The  argument based on the second ground may be disposed  of
\nat  the\t outset in order to clear the ground for  a  further
\nconsideration  of the effect of ss. 88 and 89, on which\t the
\nwhole case depends.  The learned counsel for the  plaintiff-
\nrespondent   placed  strong  reliance  upon  the   following
\nobservations of the Lord Chancellor in the case of Abbot  v.
\nThe Minister for Lands (1):\n<\/p>\n
\t      “They  think that the mere right (assuming  it
\n\t      to
\n\t       (1)  [1895] A.C. 425,431.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
65<\/span><\/p>\n
be  properly  so  called)existing  in  the  members  of\t the
\ncommunity  or  any  class of them to take  advantage  of  an
\nenactment,  without  any act done by an\t individual  towards
\navailing himself of that right, cannot properly be deemed  a
\n“right accrued” within the meaning of the enactment.”
\nThe  contention\t is  that  in  order  that  the\t  defendants
\nappellants could claim the status of ‘protected tenants’  as
\na  right  accrued under the Act of 1939,  they\tshould\thave
\ntaken  certain\tsteps  to enforce that\tright  and  got\t the
\nrelevant authorities to pronounce upon those rights, and  as
\nno  such steps had admittedly been taken by the\t appellants,
\nthey could not claim that they had a ‘right accrued’ to them
\nas  claimed.  In our opinion, there is no substance in\tthis
\ncontention.   The  observations, quoted above, made  by\t the
\nLord Chancellor, with all respect, are entirely correct, but
\nhave been made in the context of the statute under which the
\ncontroversy  had  arisen.  In that case, the  appellant\t had
\nobtained  a grant in fee-simple of certain lands  under\t the
\nCrown Lands Alienation Act, 1861.  By virtue of the original
\ngrant,\the would have been entitled to claim  settlement  of
\nadditional  areas’ if he satisfied certain  conditions\tlaid
\ndown  in  the  relevant\t provisions  of\t the  statute.\t The
\noriginal  settle  had  the right  to  claim  the  additional
\nsettlements,  if  he  so desired, on  fulfillment  of  those
\nconditions.   He had those rights to acquire the  additional
\nlands  under  the provisions of the Crown  Lands  Alienation
\nAct,,  1861, but the Crown Lands Act of 1884,  repealed\t the
\nprevious  Act, subject to a saving provision to\t the  effect
\nthat all rights accrued by virtue of the repealed, enactment
\nshall,\tsubject to any express provisions of  the  repealing
\nAct  in relation thereto, remain unaffected by such  repeal.
\nThe  appellants’ contention that under the saving clause  of
\nthe  repealed enactment he had the right to make  additional
\nconditional purchases and that was a ‘right accrued’  within
\nthe meaning of the saving clause contained in the  repealing
\nAct  of\t 1884, was negatived by the Privy Council.   It\t is,
\nthus;,\tclear  that the context in  which  the\tobservations
\nrelied upon by the respondent, as quoted above, were made is
\nentirely different
\n9<\/span>
\n66<\/span>
\nfrom the context of the present controversy.  That  decision
\nis only authority for the proposition that ‘the mere  right,
\nexisting  at  the  date\t of a  repealing  statute,  to\ttake
\nadvantage  of  provisions of the statute repealed is  not  a
\n‘right\taccrued’  within  the meaning of  the  usual  saving
\nclause’.   In  that  ruling, their Lordships  of  the  Privy
\nCouncil\t assumed that the contingent right of  the  original
\ngrantee\t was a right but it was not a right accrued’  within
\nthe  meaning  of the repealed statute.\tIt was held  not  to
\nhave  accrued  because\tthe option  given  to  the  original
\ngrantee to make additional purchases had not been  exercised
\nbefore\tthe  repeal.  In other words, the  right  which\t was
\nsought\tto be exercised was not in existence at the date  of
\nthe  repealing Act, which had restricted those\trights.\t  In
\nthe  instant  case, the right of a  ‘protected\ttenant’\t had
\naccrued to the appellants while the Act of 1939 was still in
\nforce, without any act on their part being necessary.\tThat
\nright  had  been  recognised by the  public  authorities  by
\nmaking\tthe  relevant entries in the Record  of\t Rights,  as
\naforesaid.   On\t the other hand, as  already  indicated,  s.
\n3A(1)  of  the\t‘Act  of 1939 had given\t the  right  to\t the
\nlandlord-respondent   to  take\tproceedings  to\t  have\t the
\nnecessary declaration made by the mamlatdar that the  tenant
\nhad not acquired the status of a ‘protected tenant’.  He did
\nnot proceed in that behalf.  Hence, it is clear that so\t far
\nas the appellants were concerned, their status as ‘protected
\ntenants’ had been recognised by the public authorities under
\nthe  Act of 1939, and they bad to do nothing more  to  bring
\ntheir case within the expression ‘right accrued’, in el. (b)
\nof s. 89(2) of the Act of 1948.\n<\/p>\n
It having been held that the second ground of attack against
\nthe claim made by the appellants is not well-founded in law,
\nit now remains to consider whether the first ground, namely,
\nthat  there  is an express provision in s.  88,\t within\t the
\nmeaning of s.  89(2)(b), taking away the appellants’  right,
\nis  supported  by  the\tterms  of  ss.\tand  89.   In\tthis
\nconnection,  it was pointed out on behalf of the  respondent
\nthat s. 88(1) in terms provides that ss.  1 to 87 of
\n\t\t\t     67<\/span>
\nthe Act of 1948 shall not apply to lands of the situation of
\nthe  disputed lands; and s. 31 has been further\t pressed  in
\nlaid of this argument.\tSection 31 has already “been quoted,
\nand it begins with the words “For the purposes of this Act”.
\nThe provisions of the Act of 1948 relating to the rights and
\nliabilities of a protected tenant’ are not the same as those
\nunder the Act of 1939.\tHence, though the provisions of\t ss.
\n3, 3-A and 4 of the earlier Act of 1939 have been adopt.  ed
\nby the later Act, it has been so done in the context of\t the
\nlater Act, granting greater facilities and larger rights  to
\nwhat  are described as ‘Protected tenants’.  In other  words
\ns.  31\thas  been enacted not to do  away  with\t the  rights
\ncontained  in ss. 3, 3-A and 4 of the earlier  statute,\t but
\nwith  a\t view to apply that nomenclature  to  larger  rights
\nconferred  ‘under the Act of 1948.  The provisions of s.  88
\nare  entirely  prospective.   They apply  to  lands  of\t the
\ndescription  contained in cls. (a) to (d) of a.\t 88(1)\tfrom
\nthe  date on which the Act came into operation, that is\t to
\nsay,  from December 28, 1948.  They are not intended in\t any
\nsense  to be of a confiscatory character.  They do not\tshow
\nan  intention  to  take away what  had\talready\t accrued  to
\ntenants acquiring the status of ‘protected  tenants’.\tOn
\nthe other hand, s. 89(2)(b), quoted above, clearly shows  an
\nintention  to conserve such rights as had, been acquired  or
\nhad  accrued before the commencement of the  repealing\tAct.
\nBut  it\t has  further  been  contended\ton  behalf  of\t the
\nrespondent, in ground 3 of the attack, that sub-cl. (ii)  of
\ncl. (b) of s. 89(2) would indicate that the legislature\t did
\nnot intend completely to re-enact the provisions of s. 7  of
\nthe  Bombay General Clauses Act.  This argument is based  on
\nthe  absence  of  the  word  instituted’  before  the  words
\n‘continued  and\t disposed  of’.\t In our\t opinion  there\t are
\nseveral\t answers  to this contention.  In the  first  place,
\nsub-cl. (i) is independent of sub-el. (ii) of ol. (b) of  s.
\n89(2).\t Therefore,  sub-el. (ii), which  has  reference  to
\npending\t litigation, cannot cut down the legal\tsignificance
\nand  ambit of the words used in sub-cl. (i).   Sub-cl.\t(ii)
\nmay have reference to the forum of the proceedings,  whether
\nthe Civil Court or the Revenue Court shall have seizin of
\n68<\/span>
\nproceedings taken under, the repealed Act. ;We have  already
\nheld that the expression ‘right accrued’ in sub-el. (i) does
\nnot exclude the rights of ‘protected tenants”claimed by\t the
\nappellants.  It is well settled that where there is a  right
\nrecognised  by law, there is a remedy,; and, therefore,\t in’
\nthe  absence  of  any  special\tprovisions  indicating\t the
\nparticular  forum  for\tenforcing a  particular\t right,\t the
\ngeneral law of the land will naturally take its course.\t  In
\nthis connection, it is relevant to refer to the observations
\nof  the High Court that “even if it were to be assumed\tthat
\nthe  right  as a ‘protected tenant’ remained vested  in\t the
\ndefendants even after the enactment of s. 88(1), that right,
\nin  its enforcement;against the plaintiff, must be  regarded
\nas  illusory”.\tIn our opinion, those observations  are\t not
\nwell-founded.\tCourts will be ‘very slow to assume a  right
\nand  then  to regard it as illusory, because  no  particular
\nforum  has been indicated.  Lastly, the legal effect of\t the
\nprovisions  of sub-el. (ii) aforesaid is only this that\t any
\nlegal proceeding! in’ respect of the, right claimed by,\t the
\ndefendants shall be continued and disposed of as if the\t Act
\nof  1948 had not been passed.. Applying those words  to\t the
\npresent\t  litigation  the  inference  is  clear\t  that\t the
\ncontroversy  has  to  be  resolved  with  reference  to\t the
\nprovisions  of the repealed statute.  That being so, in\t Our
\nOpinion,  the  intention  of the legislature  was  that\t the
\nlitigation we are now dealing with should be disposed of  in
\nterms  of  the repealed statute of 1939.  It  has  not\tbeen
\ndisputed before us that if that. is done, there is only\t one
\nanswer to this suit, namely, that it must be dismissed\twith
\ncosts.\t Accordingly,  we allow the appeal,  set  aside\t the
\njudgments below and dismiss the suit with costs\t throughout,
\nto the contesting defendants-appellants.
\nAppeal allowed,
\n69<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sakharam Bapusaheb Narayan Sanas … vs Manikchand Motichand Shah And … on 19 April, 1961 Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 354, 1962 SCR (2) 59 Author: B P Sinha Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj) PETITIONER: SAKHARAM BAPUSAHEB NARAYAN SANAS AND ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: MANIKCHAND MOTICHAND SHAH AND ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/04\/1961 BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-70902","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSakharam Bapusaheb Narayan Sanas ... vs Manikchand Motichand Shah And ... on 19 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakharam-bapusaheb-narayan-sanas-vs-manikchand-motichand-shah-and-on-19-april-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sakharam Bapusaheb Narayan Sanas ... vs Manikchand Motichand Shah And ... on 19 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakharam-bapusaheb-narayan-sanas-vs-manikchand-motichand-shah-and-on-19-april-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1961-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-23T09:07:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sakharam-bapusaheb-narayan-sanas-vs-manikchand-motichand-shah-and-on-19-april-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sakharam-bapusaheb-narayan-sanas-vs-manikchand-motichand-shah-and-on-19-april-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sakharam Bapusaheb Narayan Sanas … vs Manikchand Motichand Shah And … on 19 April, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-23T09:07:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sakharam-bapusaheb-narayan-sanas-vs-manikchand-motichand-shah-and-on-19-april-1961\"},\"wordCount\":3068,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sakharam-bapusaheb-narayan-sanas-vs-manikchand-motichand-shah-and-on-19-april-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sakharam-bapusaheb-narayan-sanas-vs-manikchand-motichand-shah-and-on-19-april-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sakharam-bapusaheb-narayan-sanas-vs-manikchand-motichand-shah-and-on-19-april-1961\",\"name\":\"Sakharam Bapusaheb Narayan Sanas ... vs Manikchand Motichand Shah And ... on 19 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-23T09:07:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sakharam-bapusaheb-narayan-sanas-vs-manikchand-motichand-shah-and-on-19-april-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sakharam-bapusaheb-narayan-sanas-vs-manikchand-motichand-shah-and-on-19-april-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sakharam-bapusaheb-narayan-sanas-vs-manikchand-motichand-shah-and-on-19-april-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sakharam Bapusaheb Narayan Sanas … vs Manikchand Motichand Shah And … on 19 April, 1961\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sakharam Bapusaheb Narayan Sanas ... vs Manikchand Motichand Shah And ... on 19 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakharam-bapusaheb-narayan-sanas-vs-manikchand-motichand-shah-and-on-19-april-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sakharam Bapusaheb Narayan Sanas ... vs Manikchand Motichand Shah And ... on 19 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakharam-bapusaheb-narayan-sanas-vs-manikchand-motichand-shah-and-on-19-april-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-23T09:07:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakharam-bapusaheb-narayan-sanas-vs-manikchand-motichand-shah-and-on-19-april-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakharam-bapusaheb-narayan-sanas-vs-manikchand-motichand-shah-and-on-19-april-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sakharam Bapusaheb Narayan Sanas … vs Manikchand Motichand Shah And … on 19 April, 1961","datePublished":"1961-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-23T09:07:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakharam-bapusaheb-narayan-sanas-vs-manikchand-motichand-shah-and-on-19-april-1961"},"wordCount":3068,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakharam-bapusaheb-narayan-sanas-vs-manikchand-motichand-shah-and-on-19-april-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakharam-bapusaheb-narayan-sanas-vs-manikchand-motichand-shah-and-on-19-april-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakharam-bapusaheb-narayan-sanas-vs-manikchand-motichand-shah-and-on-19-april-1961","name":"Sakharam Bapusaheb Narayan Sanas ... vs Manikchand Motichand Shah And ... on 19 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-23T09:07:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakharam-bapusaheb-narayan-sanas-vs-manikchand-motichand-shah-and-on-19-april-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakharam-bapusaheb-narayan-sanas-vs-manikchand-motichand-shah-and-on-19-april-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakharam-bapusaheb-narayan-sanas-vs-manikchand-motichand-shah-and-on-19-april-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sakharam Bapusaheb Narayan Sanas … vs Manikchand Motichand Shah And … on 19 April, 1961"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70902","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=70902"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70902\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70902"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70902"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70902"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}