A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court in Chandrasingh Manibhai and Others v. Surjit Lal Ladhamal Chhabda and Others, 1951 SCR 221, interpreted the scope and retrospective applicability of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Act LVII of 1947). The central dispute emerged from a landlord-tenant relationship concerning Bharat Bhuvan Theatre in Ahmedabad. The key legal issue was whether Section 12 of the 1947 Act, which restricts eviction rights of landlords, would apply to appeals pending when the Act came into force. The Court held that the retrospective application of the Act was strictly limited by Section 50, which did not include pending appeals. Thus, the protection granted under Section 12 could not be extended to such cases. This ruling refined the scope of retrospective laws and affirmed that appellate courts must apply laws in force at the time of the trial court’s decision unless explicitly stated otherwise. The Court restored the original decree in favor of the landlords.

Keywords: Retrospective legislation, Rent Control Act 1947, pending appeal, Section 12, Section 50, lease renewal, eviction protection.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Chandrasingh Manibhai and Others v. Surjit Lal Ladhamal Chhabda and Others

ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 57 of 1950

iii) Judgement Date: 23rd February, 1951

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Patanjali Sastri, Mehr Chand Mahajan, B.K. Mukherjea JJ.

vi) Author: Justice Mehr Chand Mahajan

vii) Citation: [1951] SCR 221; Also available on Indian Kanoon

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 12, Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947

• Section 50, Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947

• Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, 1882

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any): Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nilkanth v. Rasiklal, AIR 1949 Bom. 210 was cited with approval.

x) Case is Related to: Property Law, Tenancy Law, Statutory Interpretation, Civil Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The litigation arose from the tenancy of a cinema theatre in Ahmedabad named Bharat Bhuvan Theatre. The appellants were landlords, while the respondents were lessees. The lease agreement allowed for renewal provided three months’ prior notice was given before expiry. Dispute escalated when the respondents failed to exercise this option correctly, leading to a suit for ejectment by the landlords in 1945. The trial court ruled in favor of the landlords in 1947. However, while the appeal was pending, the Bombay Rent Control Act of 1947 came into force in 1948. The High Court reversed the trial court’s decision based on this new statute, applying its protective provisions to tenants retrospectively. The key contention before the Supreme Court revolved around the legality and applicability of such retrospective enforcement in pending appellate matters.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellants owned Bharat Bhuvan Theatre in Ahmedabad. They had leased it to the respondents for a defined term, ending on 2nd December 1945. Clause 4(2) of the lease allowed renewal if the lessees gave three months’ prior written notice. The lessees failed to give the required notice and were deemed to have lost the right to renewal. Consequently, on 13th December 1945, the appellants filed a suit for eviction and mesne profits.

The trial court, in a decree dated 14th October 1947, held that:

• The lessees did not exercise the option to renew the lease.

• They violated lease conditions, especially clause 2(20).

• The Bombay Rent Restriction Act did not apply.

An inquiry into mesne profits was also initiated. The respondents appealed to the Bombay High Court on 10th November 1947. While the appeal was pending, the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 came into force on 13th February 1948.

On 1st April 1948, the High Court reversed the trial court’s decision, granting protection under the 1947 Act, even though the lease had expired, and the renewal clause was not properly invoked. The High Court treated the appeal as a continuation of the original suit and thus applicable under the new Act.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947 applies to pending appeals at the time the Act came into force.

ii) Whether the High Court rightly reversed the trial court’s finding regarding breach of lease and non-renewal of lease.

iii) Whether the retrospective application of the Act under Section 50 extends to appeals or is limited to suits and proceedings specifically transferred under the Act.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for the Appellants submitted that Section 50 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, clearly outlined its retrospective scope, which excluded appeals from its operation. They argued the legislature intentionally used the words “suits and proceedings” and not “appeals,” thereby demonstrating legislative intent to leave appellate jurisdiction unaffected[1].

ii) They contended that Section 12 was prospective, applying only to suits instituted after the Act came into force. The phrase “such suit” in Section 12(3) confirmed its applicability only to newly instituted suits, not pending appeals[2].

iii) Further, they pointed to the 1949 Amendment (Bombay Act III of 1949), which reaffirmed the prospective operation of Section 12 and again did not extend the protection to pending appeals.

iv) Lastly, they argued that the respondents had clearly violated lease clauses, especially Clause 2(20), and had failed to exercise the renewal option properly, making them liable to eviction as per pre-existing law[3].

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondents submitted that an appeal is a continuation of the original suit and thus the appeal should be governed by the law in force at the time of the hearing, even if that law came into effect after the trial court’s decision[4].

ii) They claimed that even though the Act excluded pending appeals from Section 50, Section 12 applied independently, being a substantive and beneficial provision intended to protect tenants.

iii) They also challenged the factual findings regarding breach of lease and non-renewal, arguing that the notice requirement had been substantially met.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Section 12, Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 – Protects tenants from eviction unless specific conditions are breached.
ii) Section 50 – Repeals earlier Rent Acts and limits retrospective application to pending suits, not appeals.
iii) Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Governs notice requirements in lease matters.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Supreme Court ruled that Section 50 of the 1947 Act clearly excluded appeals from the scope of retrospective protection. The provision intended to apply the Act only to suits and proceedings transferred under the Act, which did not include appeals. The Court noted that appeals would continue to be governed by the law existing at the time of the original decree[5].

ii) It held that Section 12 is not retrospective. It applies only to suits initiated after the Act came into force, as evident from the use of the term “such suits” and not “any suit”, limiting its reach to prospective application[6].

iii) The Court also observed that the finding of fact regarding breach of lease terms and failure to renew was concurrent and final, thus not open to appellate reinterpretation in the absence of perversity.

b. OBITER DICTA 

i) The Court remarked that the mere change in law during pendency of appeal does not affect substantive rights unless legislative intent to that effect is clearly stated.

c. GUIDELINES 

The Supreme Court provided interpretive guidance:

• Appeals are not covered under the retrospective umbrella of Section 50.

• Statutory protections in beneficial legislation like rent control must be clearly expressed to be retrospective.

• Prospective interpretation is preferred unless the statute expressly states otherwise.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The ruling reasserts the principle of prospective legislation, emphasizing clarity in legislative drafting when retrospective operation is intended. The Court ensured that finality of decrees is respected and that parties cannot invoke beneficial legislation retrospectively unless clearly allowed. It balances landlord rights and tenant protections within the framework of legal certainty and procedural integrity.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
[1] Nilkanth v. Rasiklal, AIR 1949 Bom. 210
[2] K. Prakash v. B.R. Sampath Kumar, (2015) 12 SCC 254
[3] Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry, AIR 1957 SC 540

b. Important Statutes Referred
[4] Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947
[5] Bombay Rent Act Amendment Act, 1949 (Bombay Act III of 1949)
[6] Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 106