1. (Govindan Nair, Mathew and Balakrishna Eradi, JJ. agreeing with him): Until the 20th of May 1967, S.27 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for short the Act read thus:

"27. Fair rent. (1) The fair rent in respect of a holding shall be the rent payable by the cultivating

tenant to his landlord and it shall be the rent calculated at the rates specified in Schedule III applicable to the class of lands comprised in the holding or the contract rent, whichever is less.

Explanation. Where the fair rent in respect of a holding has been determined under any law in force immediately before the 21st January, 1961, the fair rent so determined shall be deemed to be the contract rent for the purposes of this sub-section.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (i), the fair rent in respect of a holding, where the cultivating tenant or an intermediary is holding under a smallholder, shall, at the option of the small-holder, be

(a) the rent calculated at the rates specified in Schedule III applicable to the class of lands comprised in the holding; or

(b) Where the fair rent in respect of the holding has been determined under any law in force immediately before the 21st January, 1961 such fair rent, or, where fair rent has not been so determined, 75 per cent of the contract rent:

Provided that the fair rent payable by a cultivating kanamdar or a cultivating customary varumpattamdar shall not exceed the michavaram payable by such kanamdar or the rent payable by such customary Virumpattamdar, as the case may be."

On the 20th May, an Ordinance was promulgated (Ordinance 4 of 1967) by S.8 whereof certain provisions of the Act were amended. Sub-section (2) of this section said that "sub-section (2) of S.27 shall be omitted"in other words, this sub-section of the Act was repealed. (If authority were needed for the proposition that

to omit a provision from a statute is to repeal that provision, see Gujarat Electricity Board v. Shantilal AIR. 1969 Supreme Court 239 where this was taken for granted). On the 30th July 1967, the Ordinance was replaced by Act 9 of 1967, sub-section (7) of S.10 whereof said the same thing. Neither the Ordinance nor the Act of 1967 betrays a different intention within the meaning of S.4 of the (Kerala) Interpretation and General Clauses Act it may be noted that clause (3) of S.2 of that Act defines the word, "Act" so as to include an Ordinance and clause (10), the word, "enactment" so as to include an Act and we decline to countenance the argument that both the Ordinance and the Act of 1967 manifest a determination to ride rough-shod over the rights of landlords, nay, to annihilate them, and that an intention in keeping with this determination must be presumed; in other words, that that construction must be placed on the repeal which most adversely affects the interests of the landlords. The common question that arises in these petitions is whether any right had accrued to the petitioner landlords under sub-section (2) of S.27 of the Act before the repeal of that sub-section within the meaning of clause (c) of S.4 of the (Kerala) Interpretation and General Clauses Act so as to remain unaffected by the repeal. That section so far as is material reads thus:

4. Effect of repeal. Where any Act repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not

(a) x x x

(b) x x x

(c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or

(d) x x x

(e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation liability, penalty, forfeiture, or punishment as aforesaid, and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act had not been passed.

The section, it will be noticed, is the same as S.6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and