Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 787 of 1964 (by certificate), decided 11 August 1967; bench: K.N. Wanchoo C.J., V. Bhargava and G.K. Mitter JJ. Joint judgment of Wanchoo C.J. and Mitter J. delivered by Mitter J.; Bhargava J. delivered a separate (concurring) opinion. Gopi Kanta Sen (landlord) challenged the Division Bench judgment and decree dated January 5, 1961 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 1012 of 1955, whereby his appeal in an ejectment suit against Abdul Gaffur was dismissed on the view that after omission of ss. 28 and 29 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act by the Amending Act of 1953, suits for eviction of thika tenants became infructuous before civil courts. The underlying suit (No. 292 of 1948, instituted 18 June 1948 against Abdul Rahim, Abdul Hamid and Abdul Gaffur regarding premises No. 6/1, Shibtola Lane, Entally, Calcutta) was decreed on 18 March 1949, the defendant's first appeal was dismissed on 23 November 1949, possession was recovered on 18 December 1949, and after a remand ordered on 21 July 1954 the Subordinate Judge held Gaffur to be a thika tenant under the amended definition, protected by s. 3. HELD (Wanchoo C.J. and Mitter J.): (i) statutes are presumed prospective and not to operate retrospectively so as to defeat vested rights, unless retrospective operation follows from express enactment or necessary implication; s. 3 is expressly retrospective — 'notwithstanding anything contained in any other law... or in any contract' a thika tenant is liable to ejectment only on the specified grounds — and therefore applies even to pre-Act suits; (ii) the s. 3 grounds need not be stated in the notice of ejectment, but ejectment is barred unless the existence of one ground is proved, proof being possible at trial; the landlord attempted to prove none, so the decision against him stands; (iii) ss. 4 (notice under s. 106, Transfer of Property Act) and 5 (application to Controller) are prospective and inapplicable to pre-Act suits; (iv) omission of ss. 28 and 29 does not render ejectment suits infructuous: there being no transfer provision, the court hearing the appeal must pass an ejectment decree applying s. 3, whereupon the tenant gets no compensation for structures but may remove them under s. 108(h), Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs. Bhargava J.: the appeal must be dismissed because the respondent was entitled to the benefit of s. 3; opinion on whether s. 4 is prospective or required compliance expressly reserved.
