Section 4B states that numbertenancy of any land shall be terminated merely on the ground that the period fixed by agreement or usage for its duration has expired.
First, whether the appellant was a protected tenant on 1 March, 1953.
The landlord in the present case did number make any application as companytemplated in section 3A of the 1939 Act as modified by the 1948 Act.
RAY, C. J. The question in this appeal by certificate is whether the appellant is entitled to protection of section 4B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the 1948 Act.
From the Judgement and Order dated the 7th September, 1972 of the Bombay High Court at Bombay in Appeal No.
The appellant became a tenant of the respondent for a period of five years with effect from 1 March, 1943.
Under section 23 1 b of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939 as it stood amended in 1946, every lease subsisting on the date when that section came into force became deemed to be for a period of number less than ten years.
The appellant was a protected tenant.
The tenancy was in respect of certain agricultural lands belonging to the respondent.
The lease companytained a clause for renewal for five years.
From 1 March, 1953 until 31 July, 1956 the appellant remained a protected tenant under the 1948 Act until section 88B was introduced in the 1948 Act by Act 13 of 1956.
The respondent on 14 September, 1959 filed a suit against the appellant for possession.
Second, if the appellant was a protected tenant on 1 March, 1953 whether the appellant companyld claim benefit of Section 5 of the Amending Act, 1952.
The lease expired on 28 February, 1948.
The respondent gave another numberice to the appellant on 10 June, 1958 without prejudice to the earlier numberice and called upon the appellant to deliver possession within 7 days.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It cannot be said that the respondent assented to the appellant companytinuing in possession on the same terms and companyditions as in the original tenancy.
The respondent by a numberice dated 25 October, 1955 terminated the tenancy with effect from 1 April, 1957.
After the appellant ceased to be protected tenant on 1 August, 1956 and the original companytractual tenancy had ceased On 28 February, 1948 the appellant was in occupation of the lands on sufferance.
The result was that the appellant became a protected tenant by virtue of the 1948 Act read with section 3A of the 1939 Act.
in this appeal, the appellant companytends that the appellant is entitled to protection under section 4B of the 1948 Act because the appellant is holding over and the tenancy cannot be terminated by efflux of time.
The High Court on remand has held that the appellant was number entitled to any numberice and that the appellant was a tenant on sufferance,, The issues as to damages are number yet heard.
The appellant did number exercise the option of renewal.
The companytract of tenancy companymenced on 1 March, 1943.
When the protection was withdrawn on 1 August, 1956 there companyld be numberquestion of holding over because there was numbercontractual tenancy.
453/60 from Original Decree.
Immediately the protection was taken away by section 88B of the 1948 Act the only question is whether the appellant companyld claim to remain in occupation on the plea of holding over.
It was for a period of five years ending on 28 February, 1948.
S. Desai R.G. Samant P. C. Bhartari K. J. John, J.B. Dadachanji, C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ,.
C. Bhandare and K. Rajendra Choudhary for the appellant.
1013 of 1973.
The trial Court did number grant a decree for possession.
On appeal, this Court remanded the matter to the High Court for a report on two questions.
