TMI Blog1972 (1) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndlord filed an application under S. 21(1)(a) of the Act for eviction of the petitioner-tenant alleging that the tenant was in arrears of rent. By order dt. 4-10-1970 made in HRC. No. 2 of 1968, the learned Munsiff at Sagar ordered the eviction of the tenant. While making the said order, the Munsiff proceeded under S. 21(2) of the Act as it existed prior to its amendment by Mysore Act No. 14 of 1969. S. 7 of Mysore Act No. 14 of 1969 substituted the following sub-section for sub-sec. (2) of Section 21: No order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specified in clause (a) of the proviso to sub-sec. (1), if the tenant- (i) complies with the provisions of Section 29; (ii) satisf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case. 4. Sri P.R Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the respondent contended that since the amendment affects the substantive rights of the parties the amendment has no retrospective effect and it does not govern pending proceedings. 5. The question for decision is whether S. 21(2) of the Act as substituted by S. 7 of Mysore Act 14 of 1969 governs cases where the proceedings for eviction had been instituted before the said amendment came into force. 6. The matter pertains to rules of construction of statutes and the effect of amendments made to an Act. In the instant case, sub-sec. (2) of S. 21 provides for the circumstances under which relief against eviction can be granted in proceedings under the Act. The said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arlier, then the earlier Act must thereafter be read and construed (except where that would lead to a repugnancy, inconsistency or absurdity) as if the altered words had been written into the earlier Act with pen and ink and the old words scored out so that thereafter there is no need to refer to the amending Act at all. 9. No repugnancy or inconsistency between the old and the new sub-sections have been pointed out to us. When the amending Act has stated that the old sub-section has been substituted by the new sub-section, the inference is that the Legislature intended that the substituted provision should be deemed to have been part of the Act from the very inception. When the proceedings were pending, the amended provision came ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
