Summary
Under a registered lease of 1973, land in Kolkata was let for 20 years, and the lessees put up a pucca factory structure. The lease expired in 1993. In 2003 the lessees claimed thika tenancy and the Controller and the Tribunal held that the land had vested in the State. The Calcutta High Court reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court and approved the Full Bench decision in Lakshmimoni Das. Until the 2010 amendment, which applies only prospectively, 'any structure' in the thika definitions under the 1949, 1981 and 2001 Acts meant a kutcha structure. The appellants were not thika tenants: their structure was pucca, the lease exceeded 12 years, the 1981 Act had been stayed for this property, and after 1993 they owed no rent. Nothing vested.
Issues
- Whether 'any structure' in the definition of thika tenant under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 and its successor Acts includes a pucca structure.
- Whether lessees under a 20-year registered lease who erected a pucca structure became thika tenants so that the land vested in the State under the 1981 or 2001 Acts.
- Whether persons holding over after the lease expired could claim thika tenancy under the 2001 Act.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(5) and 10A, Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949A thika tenant excluded a lessee under a registered lease of 12 years or more. 'Any structure' meant a kutcha structure, read with Section 108(p) of the TP Act. Section 10A would have been unnecessary if pucca structures were already covered. (¶¶ 5.1, 24.1, 28.1, 28.3, 35)
- Sections 3(8) and 5, Calcutta Thika and Other Tenancies and Lands (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981The core definition was carried over from the 1949 Act and must bear the same judicial meaning. Following Lakshmimoni Das, vesting covered only kutcha thika tenancies, permitted residential pucca structures and khatals. The Act had in any case been stayed for this property. (¶¶ 6.4, 25.2, 25.3, 27.1, 29, 31)
- Sections 2(14) and 4, West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001Pucca structures came within the definition only by the 2010 amendment, prospectively from 01.11.2010. By then no lease subsisted, so the appellants were not thika tenants and nothing vested. (¶¶ 7.1, 26, 28.5, 32)
Held
- The structure was pucca, as the Controller found from the municipal assessment records and the spot enquiry. The Tribunal's 'semi-pucca' label was not recognised by the statute and could not stand. (¶¶ 23, 23.1, 23.2)
- Until 01.11.2010, erecting a pucca structure on leased land did not make the tenant a thika tenant. The thika statutes form a single legislative series. Repealing and re-enacting the 1949 Act in the 1981 Act reaffirmed the settled meaning of 'any structure', which by stare decisis should not be unsettled. (¶¶ 26, 27, 27.1, 28, 28.2, 28.3)
- Lakshmimoni Das was affirmed. The 1993 amendment's 'other land' clause could not bring about the indiscriminate vesting of all let-out land, and that idea was abandoned in the 2001 Act. (¶¶ 25.4, 25.5, 29, 30, 35)
- The appellants were not thika tenants under any of the Acts. The 1949 Act excluded their 20-year lease and pucca structure, the 1981 Act was under eclipse for this property because of the High Court's stay, and after the lease expired on 30.11.1993 they were liable to pay no rent. (¶¶ 31, 32, 35)
- The Controller's reliance on Purushottam Das Murarka was misplaced. That case held only that an existing thika tenant does not lose that status by building a pucca structure, not that building one makes a tenant a thika tenant. (¶¶ 33, 33.1)
Result
Appeal dismissed. The High Court's judgment holding that the appellants were not thika tenants and that the land had not vested in the State was upheld. The occupancy charges deposited, with interest, were released to the first respondent. No order as to costs.