TMI Blog1914 (10) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned Judges are: (1) That the rent claimed by the Zamindar has been paid by the tenants for over 60 years, (2) that there was a valid contract to pay the rent which was legally enforceable under the provisions of the Rent Recovery Act, (3) that the improvements in respect of which the enhanced rent had been paid ever since 1846 were effected by the tenants. Mr. Justice Sadasiva Aiyar was of opinion that in spite of these facts the landlord was not entitled to sue for the rent at the rate paid ever since 1846 as Section 13, Clause 3 of the Estates Land Act was retrospective and prevented the landlord from claiming higher rent in consequence of improvements effected by the tenants even though such improvements have been effected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 886) L.R. 31 Ch. D. 402 Bowen L.J. observed as follows: The particular rule of construction which has been referred to, but which is valuable only when the words of an Act of Parliament are not plain, is embodied in the well-known trite maxim Omnis nova Constitution futures formam improper debet nonpraeteritis that is, that except in special cases the new law ought to be construed so as to interfere as little as possible with vested rights. It seems to me that even in construing an Act which is to a certain extent retrospective, and in construing a section which is to a certain extent retrospective, we ought nevertheless to bear in mind that maxim as applicable whenever we reach the line at which the words of the section cease to be plain. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o impair an existing right or obligation otherwise than as regards matter of procedure, unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment. If the enactment is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation, it should be construed as prospective only. As observed by Maxwell the rules laid down in Lauri v. Renad (1892) 3 Ch. 402 Reid v. Reid (1886) 31 Ch. D. 102 West v. Gwynne (1911) 2. Ch.15 have special operation where the enactment would prejudicially affect vested rights or the legal character of past transactions or impair contracts. 7. Section 6, Clause (c) of the General Clauses Act and Section 8, Clause (d) of the Madras Act 1 of 1891 also provide that the repea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n it can be held that Section 13, Clause 3 should be construed as taking away such a right. It is argued by the respondents' advocate that the policy of the law has always been to give to the tenant the benefit of improvements made by him. This may be so, but the law as it stood prior to the passing of the Estates Land Act did not prevent additional rent being legally recoverable in cases where it was payable under a contract. 11. I am of opinion that the words 'contract to the contrary' refer only to contracts made after the passing of the Act and that Section 13, Clause 3 has no retrospective operation in cases where rent claimed was payable under a contract which would have been legally enforceable under the Rent Recovery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
