The main legal point established in the judgment is that the retrospective effect of an amendment does not necessarily warrant interference with final judgments, and orders for eviction passed under specific sections of the Act are not amenable to correction under other sections.

1. The landlord who is the respondent in these two Appeals, filed R. C. O. P. No. 207 of 1954 for eviction of the appellant-tenant under the Madras Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1949, and continued it, after the enactment of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1959, under the latter Act (which will be referred to hereinafter as the Act) as S.33 thereof directed all proceedings, commenced under the Madras Act and pending at its commencement, to be deemed to have been commenced under it and continued subject to its provisions.

2. Under the Act, no tenant is allowed to resist eviction by his landlord unless he be free of arrears of rent. S.12 of the Act provides:

"(1) No tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under S.11, shall be entitled to contest the application before the Rent Control Court under that section, or to prefer, any appeal under S.18 against any order made by the Rent Control Court on the application, unless he has paid or pays to the landlord, or deposits with the Rent Control Court or the appellate authority, as the case may be, all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due in respect of the building up to the date of payment or deposit, and continues to pay or to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building, until the termination of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court or the appellate authority, as the case may be;

(2) The deposit of rent under sub-section (1] shall be made within the time and in the manner prescribed and shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed for the service of the notice referred to in sub-section (4);

(3) If any tenant fails to pay or to deposit the rent as aforesaid the Rent Control Court or the appellate authority as the case may be, shall, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building."

This section was amended by Act 29 of 1961 which substituted for its subsection (2) the following:

"(2) The deposit under sub-section (1) shall be made within such time as the court may fix and in such manner as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed for the service of notice referred to in sub-section (4):

Provided that the time fixed by the court for the deposit of the arrears of rent shall not be less than four weeks from the date of the order and the time fixed for the deposit of rent which subsequently accrues due shall not be less than two weeks from the date on which the rent becomes due."

3. In view of the provisions of S.12 (1) of the Act, the appellant was asked to state the rent that was in arrear. The statement he filed on December 7,1959, in response thereto, showed Rs. 3327-70 nP as due by him after setting off the amounts alleged to have been spent by him for repairs of the building. As there was no rule fixing the time to be allowed to a tenant to clear off arrears, the court, on January 28, 1960 directed the appellant to deposit the admitted arrears in 15 days; and that order not having been complied with, surrender of the building to the landlord under S.12 (3) was ordered on February 12,1960. An appeal (C. M. A. No. 53 of 1960) preferred before the appellate authority (the Subordinate Judge), as also a revision (CRP. No. 328 of 1960) of the appellate order sought before the District Judge did not succeed. So he moved O. P. No. 1486 of 1961 in this court for a writ of certiorari to quash the aforesaid order of eviction.

Meanwhile, on March 7,1960, the appellant deposited Rs. 3345-70 nP. being the admitted arrears (Rs. 3327-70) and interest thereon, but ignoring further rents that fell in arrears in the interval, and applied to have the order of eviction vacated under S.11 (2) (b) of the Act. The Rent Control Court dismissed it. C. M. A. No. 99 of 1960 preferred against that order came to be dismissed by the appellate autho