whether an amendment made to Section 5
of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Amendment Act could be said to be
retrospective because its operation ... March 31,
1953 if the statutory provision had not
in the meanwhile extended the life of
the tenancy. It is true that the
appellant gave
whether an amendment made to Section 5 of the
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Amendment Act could be said to
be retrospective because its operation ... March 31, 1953 if the statutory
provision had not in the meanwhile extended the life of the
tenancy. It is true that the appellant gave
whether an amendment made to Section 5
of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Amendment Act could be said to be
retrospective because its operation ... March 31,
1953 if the statutory provision had not
in the meanwhile extended the life of
the tenancy. It is true that the
appellant gave
whether an amendment made to Section 5
of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Amendment Act could be said to be
retrospective because its operation ... March 31,
1953 if the statutory provision had not
in the meanwhile extended the life of
the tenancy. It is true that the
appellant gave
whether an amendment made to Section 5
of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Amendment Act could be said to be
retrospective because its operation ... March 31,
1953 if the statutory provision had not
in the meanwhile extended the life of
the tenancy. It is true that the
appellant gave
whether an amendment made to Section 5
of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Amendment Act could be said to be
retrospective because its operation ... March 31,
1953 if the statutory provision had not
in the meanwhile extended the life of
the tenancy. It is true that the
appellant gave
whether an amendment made to Section 5
of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Amendment Act could be said to be
retrospective because its operation ... March 31,
1953 if the statutory provision had not
in the meanwhile extended the life of
the tenancy. It is true that the
appellant gave
whether an amendment made to Section 5
of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Amendment Act could be said to be
retrospective because its operation ... March 31,
1953 if the statutory provision had not
in the meanwhile extended the life of
the tenancy. It is true that the
appellant gave
whether an amendment made to Section 5 of the Bombay
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Amendment Act could be said
to be retrospective because its operation ... March 31, 1953 if the statutory provision had
not in the meanwhile extended the life of the
tenancy. It is true that the appellant gave
since 5th respondent and Sanjay
Kumar were joint tenants, the contract of tenancy
amongst them was a single and indivisible contract and
therefore ... residential.
The contract of tenancy is a single and indivisible contract,
and in the absence of any statutory provision to that effect
