B. BANERJEE versus ANITA PAN

B. BANERJEE versus ANITA PAN

By majority, retrospective application of s.13(3A) to pending suits and appeals is an unreasonable restriction and not saved by Article 19(5); s.13(3A) is valid only prospectively. However, s.13(1)(f) and (ff) and other amendments giving relief to tenants as a class are valid and may be applied retrospectively to pending actions. The cases are remitted to the High Court for disposal with appropriate opportunity to parties to adduce evidence on the amended grounds for eviction.

Parties
Appellant: B. Banerjee; Respondent: Anita Pan; Appellant: Sukumar Ghose; Respondent: D. N. Mukherjee; Intervener: Advocate General for the State of West Bengal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 November 1974
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeals / On Appeal From Calcutta High Court by Special Leave, Disposed of by Common Judgment
Outcome
Appeals partly allowed; judgment of High Court on invalidity of s.13(3A) retrospective effect upheld; cases remanded for further action under amended law.
Legal Topics
Retrospective Operation of Law, Reasonable Restriction on Property Rights, Eviction of Tenant, Interpretation of Social Welfare Legislation
Constitutional Law Property Law Tenancy Law Retrospective Operation of Law Reasonable Restriction on Property Rights Eviction of Tenant Interpretation of Social Welfare Legislation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B. Banerjee

Appellant

Anita Pan

Respondent

Sukumar Ghose

Appellant

D. N. Mukherjee

Respondent

Advocate General for the State of West Bengal

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeals / On Appeal From Calcutta High Court by Special Leave, Disposed of by Common Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.13(1)(f) and (ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 as amended in 1969 are ultra vires Article 19(1)(f) and (5) of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the retrospective application of s.13(3A) to pending suits amounts to an unreasonable restriction on property rights

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, retrospective application of s.13(3A) to pending suits and appeals is an unreasonable restriction and not saved by Article 19(5); s.13(3A) is valid only prospectively. However, s.13(1)(f) and (ff) and other amendments giving relief to tenants as a class are valid and may be applied retrospectively to pending actions. The cases are remitted to the High Court for disposal with appropriate opportunity to parties to adduce evidence on the amended grounds for eviction.

Court Disposition

Appeals partly allowed; judgment of High Court on invalidity of s.13(3A) retrospective effect upheld; cases remanded for further action under amended law.

Orders

  • Cases remanded to the High Court for disposal in the light of the majority judgment and directions.
  • No order as to costs in the Supreme Court appeals; discretion as to further costs left to High Court.