1972 Supreme(Kar) 6
Karnataka High Court
SHA CHUNNILAL SOHANRAJ - Appellant
Versus
T.GURUSHANTAPPA - Respondent
Decided On : 01-13-72
C.R.P. : 608 of 1971
P.R.SRINIVASAN, T.S.Ramachandra
The amended provision of a statute should be deemed to have been part of the law from the beginning and applied to pending proceedings, unless there is a clear contrary intent.
Headnote:
Rent Control Act - Application of Section 21(2) - Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961, Section 21(2)
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed for eviction of the tenant under Section 21(1)(a) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961, alleging arrears of rent. The lower courts proceeded under the old provision of Section 21(2) without considering the amendment made by Mysore Act No. 14 of 1969.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the amended provision of Section 21(2) should be applied to the pending proceedings, as the amendment supersedes the original provision and should be deemed to have been part of the Act from the beginning.
Issues: The main issue was whether the amended Section 21(2) applied to pending eviction proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court applied the canons of construction and held that the amended provision should be applied to pending proceedings, as there was no repugnancy or inconsistency between the old and new sub-sections.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the lower court's orders and remitted the matter to the Munsiff at Sagar with a direction to restore the case to its original file and dispose of it in accordance with the law.
( 2 ) IN this revision petition, Sri T. S. Ramachandra, learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 21 as substituted by Sec. 7, of Mysore Act 14 of 1969 governs the case as the proceedings were pending before the Court of the Munsiff when the amendment came into force. Learned Counsel argued that the Courts below have erred in the exercise of their jurisdiction by ignoring the provision of law which governs the case. Sri P. R. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the respondent contended that since the amendement affects the substantive rights of the parties the amendment has no retrospective effect and it does not govern pending proceedings.
( 3 ) THE question for decision is whether S. 21 (3) 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. 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 sub-section was amended by substitution of a new provision set out in the earlief part of this order. Where a section of a statute is amended, the original ceases to exist and the new section supersedes it and becomes part of the law just as if the amendment has always been there. (Vide Crowford, Statutory Construction- interpretation of Laws pages 110-111 ).
( 4 ) AN amending Act is not regarded as an independent statute. The statute in its old form is superseded by the statute in its amended form, the amended section of the statute taking the place of