9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Applicability of the amended provision of Section 21(2) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 to pending eviction proceedings. Detailed Analysis: The revision petition under Section 50 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 was referred to a Bench of two Judges to determine the applicability of the amended provision of Section 21(2) as introduced by Mysore Act No. 14 of 1969 to the ongoing eviction case. The landlord had filed for eviction of the tenant citing arrears of rent under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. The original order for eviction was made by the Munsiff under the provision that existed before the amendment by Mysore Act No. 14 of 1969. The amendment introduced conditions for relief against eviction, including compliance with Section 29 and payment of determined amounts within a specified period. The tenant appealed the eviction order, arguing that the amended Section 21(2) should apply retroactively to their case as the proceedings were ongoing when the amendment came into effect. The tenant's counsel contended that the lower courts erred by not considering the amended provision in their decisions. Conversely, the landlord's counsel argued that the amendment did not have retrospective effect on pending proceedings as it affected substantive rights. The central question for decision was whether the amended Section 21(2) should govern cases where eviction proceedings were initiated before the enactment of the amending statute. The Court delved into the rules of statutory construction and the impact of amendments on existing laws. It was established that when a section of a statute is amended, the original provision is replaced entirely by the new provision, which becomes part of the law as if it had always been there. Citing legal principles and precedents, including the Supreme Court's stance on statutory interpretation, the Court emphasized that an amending act integrates itself into the original statute, effectively replacing the old provision with the new one. As no inconsistencies were found between the old and new sub-sections, the Court concluded that the amended provision must be applied to pending proceedings, superseding the original provision that ceased to exist post-amendment. Given that both parties and the lower courts overlooked the amended provision during the proceedings, the Court set aside the previous orders and remitted the case to the Munsiff for reconsideration in light of the amended Section 21(2) of the Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of applying amended provisions to ongoing cases and directed the lower court to adjudicate the matter according to law.
|
