Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In order to appreciate the historical perspective, it may not be inappropriate to refer to the decision in Waman Shrinivas Kini v. Ratilal Bhagwandas & Co., [1959] 2 Suppl. SCR 217. The appellant there was a tenant originally in the old building but after it was purchased by the respondent in the new premises. In the old premises the appellant had sub- tenant who shifted to the new premises along with the appellant when the latter occupied the said premises. One of the terms of the lease which was contained in a letter dated 7th June, 1948, written by the respondent to the appellant provided: "In the shops in the old chawl which are with you, you have kept sub-tenants. We are permitting you to keep sub-tenants in the same manner, in this place also". On 20th April, 1949, the respondent brought a suit for ejectment against the appellant on the ground, inter alia, that section 15 of the said Act, as it stood at the relevant time, prohibited sub-letting and under section 13(1) (c) of the Act the landlord had a right to evict the tenant on account of sub-letting. The appellant's defence was (1) that section 15 of the Act was confined to "any other law", that it did not apply to contracts between the landlord and tenant and therefore it did not preclude an agreement between the parties as to sub-letting, (2) that the parties were in pari delicto and therefore the respondent could not succeed, and (3) that the right of the respondent to sue for ejectment on the ground of sub-letting being a personal right for his benefit, he must be taken to have waived it as he had allowed the appellant to sub-let and, consequently, he could not evict him under section 13(1) (e) of the Act. It was held that the non-obstante clause in the said Act applied to contracts also as these would fall under the provisions of the law relating to contracts. It was further held that the respondent was entitled to sue for ejectment, though the agreement recognised sub-letting, as the suit was brought not for the enforcement of the agreement but to enforce the right of eviction which flowed directly from an infraction of the provisions of section 15 of the Act and for which the Act itself provided a remedy. The section was based upon public policy and where public policy demanded, even an equal participant in an illegality was allowed relief by way of restitution or recission, though not on the contract and, thirdly, it was further held that the plea of waiver which the appellant relied on could not be sustained because as a result of giving effect to that plea that court would be enforcing in illegal agreement and thus contravene the statutory provisions of section 15 of the Act, as the agreement to waive an illegality was void on grounds of public policy and would be unenforceable. This led to a rather peculiar result where the landlord had permitted himself subletting and yet could sue. This resulted in amendment of section 15 sub-section (1) of the Act by adding "but subject to any contract to the contrary" by section 7 of the Bombay Amending Act 49 of 1959.

According to full bench, submitted learned counsel for the respondent, the combined effect of these provisions was that a tenant whether contractual or statutory could not create any valid licence unless the terms of his tenancy allowed him to create a sublease or otherwise transfer his interest in the premises. It was submitted that the High Court was right in coming to this conclusion. It was further urged that it was wrong to assume that a statutory tenant was no longer bound by the terms of his contract of tenancy after his contract was terminated by the notice of the landlord. It was emphasised with reference to the decisions in the case of Dhanapal Chettiar's case [1980] 1 SCR 334 at 340. and Gian Devi's case. [1985] 2 SCC 683 at 686-687 and 707. It was indicated that the termination of tenancy made under the said terms agreed to govern the relationship between the landlord and the tenant even after the tenancy was determined and a tenant became a statutory tenant. It was not denied, it is true, that a licence was a personal privilege and that it did not create any interest in property. However, according to section 53 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, according to counsel, the rights of any person to create any licence was co-terminus with his right to transfer his interest in the property in question. In other words, what counsel sought to emphasise was that though a licence was not a transfer of interest, the right to grant a licence was co-terminus with the right to transfer his interest in the property. It was, therefore, submitted that since a tenant, whether contractual or statutory, could not create any subtenancy or transfer interest in the premises after 21st May, 1959 (unless he was positively authorised by his landlord to do so), he also could not create any vaild licence in respect of the premises. It was not because, counsel urged, a licence was a transer of an interest of property but because the capacity of a person to create a valid licence was limited to his capacity to create a vaild transfer. This, it was urged, was a clear result of section 53 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882. According to Shri Tarkunde, the non-obstante clause in section 15A of the said Act protected the operative part of the section should prevail inspite of anything contrary in any law or contract. In section 15A, the operative part was the provision that "he (licensee) shall on that date be deemed to have become, for the purposes of the Act, the tenant of the landlord, in respect of the premises or part thereof, in his occupation". The non-obstante clause clearly provided that a licensee in the circumstances mentioned in the section who was not a tenant, shall nevertheless be deemed to be a tenant. It is wrong to interpret, according to Shri Tarkunde, the non-obstante clause as if it validated a licence which was invalid. The non-obstante clause, according to counsel, did not say that notwithstanding any law or contract to the contrary, a person who claimed to be a licensee should be deemed to be a licensee; what it says was that a person who was in fact a licensee would be deemed to be a tenant. The question is whether the appellant in the present case had a valid licence on 1st February, 1973 and that question which has to be determined independently of the nonobstante clause. If it was contended, it was found that the appellant was a licensee of the premises and was in occupation thereof on 1st February, 1973, then it would follow, notwithstanding any law or contract to the contrary, that she should be deemed to be a tenant of the premises. Reliance was placed on the observations of this Court in Aswini Kumar Ghosh & Another v. Arabinda Bose & Another, [1953] SCR 1, and Dominion of India & Another v. Shribai A. Irani & Another, [1955] 1 SCR 206 at 231 in support of the proposition that non-obstante clause was relevant to the operative part of the section.

If the view of the full bench of the Bombay High Court is to be given effect to, then it will defeat the purpose of the non- obstante clause in section 15A of the Act. The rule of construction is to give effect to the intention of the legislature and not to amend what is actually expressed where the language is plain and admits of one meaning, the task of interpretation can hardly be said to arise. Here, in this case it is possible to give effect to the literal construction; nothing has been shown to warrant that such literal construction should not be given effect to. The words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. See Nokes v. Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries, Ltd., [1940] A.C. 1014 at 1022 where the grammatical construction is clear and manifest and without doubt that construction ought to prevail unless there are some strong and obvious reasons to the contrary. In this case there is none.

A clause beginning with the expression "notwithstanding any thing contained in this Act or in some particular provision in the Act or in some particular Act or in any law for the time being in force, or in any contract" is more often than not appended to a section in the beginning with a view to give the enacting part of the section in case of conflict an overriding effect over the provision of the Act or the contract mentioned in the non-obstante clause. It is equivalent to saying that in spite of the provision of the Act or any other Act mentioned in the non-obstante clause or any contract or document mentioned the enactment following it will have its full operation or that the provisions embraced in the non-obstante clause would not be an impediment for an operation of the enactment. See in this connection the observations of this Court in The South India Corporation (P) Ltd. v. The Secretary, Board of Revenue, Trivandrum & Anr., AIR 1964 SC 207 at 215-[1964] 4 SCR 280.