Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In Kanai Lal v. Paramnidhi, [1958] SCR 360, the status of the appellants as thika tenant was not in question. The question therein was whether under Section 5(1) of the Act as amended by the Amending Act of 1953 execution proceedings taken out by the decree holder against the appellant could be entertained only by the Controller and not by the civil Courts. This Court held that Section 5(1) did not apply to a case where the landlord had already obtained a decree for ejectment against his thika tenant and consequently the civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application. It was noted that until 1948 the rights and liabilities of the landlords and their thika tenants were governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. On October 26, 1948, the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Ordinance XI of 1948 was promulgated because it was thought expedient, pending the enactment of appropri- ate legislation to provide for the temporary stay of the execution of certain decrees and orders of ejectment of thika tenants in Calcutta. The object of the Ordinance was to give protection to the thika tenants in Calcutta and to afford them interim relief by staying execution of certain decrees and orders as mentioned in Section 3 until an appro- priate Act was passed by the Legislature in that behalf. The facts of the instant case are entirely different inasmuch as the lease was dated 26th September, 1946 and no question of eviction by executing any decree arose until the Act was passed. The only point to be noted is that the tenancy under the lease on the relevant date of creation was governed by the Transfer of Property Act. In Mahadeolal Kanodia v. Administrator General of West Bengal, [1960] 3 SCR 578 = AIR 1960 SC 936, the question for decision was whether the appellant against whom proceedings for execution of a decree for ejectment was pending, who had applied for relief under Section 28 and when that section was in force, was entitled to have his application disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Section 28, which had ceased to exist retrospectively though it remained undisposed on the date the Amendment Act, 1953 which omitted Section 28 of the Act, came into force. This case is there- fore of no assistance to the appellants.