Pending eviction proceedings are saved by Section 6 despite withdrawal of rent-control protection, with no vested tenant right.

Withdrawal of tenant protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act did not give tenants a vested right to insist on the continuance of that protection. Pending eviction proceedings already filed before the Rent Controller did not abate, because Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 preserved accrued rights, privileges and continuing legal proceedings unless a contrary intention appeared. The landlord's interest in the pending petition was treated as an accrued right or privilege, not a vested right in the abstract eviction grounds, and the Rent Controller retained jurisdiction over the existing matter.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, on withdrawal of tenant protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act by the insertion of Section 3(c), pending eviction proceedings already instituted before the Rent Controller abate or continue; (ii) whether a tenant has a vested right under rent control legislation and whether a landlord has a vested right under the grounds of eviction in Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act; (iii) whether Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 saves the landlord's accrued right and the pending eviction proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether, on withdrawal of tenant protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act by the insertion of Section 3(c), pending eviction proceedings already instituted before the Rent Controller abate or continue.

Analysis: The amendment excluding premises fetching rent above the prescribed limit removed the tenant's statutory protection for the future, but the Court distinguished between the extinction of protection and the effect on proceedings already pending. It held that the crucial question was whether the repeal or amendment manifested a contrary intention so as to destroy pending proceedings, and that the answer depended on the saving principle embodied in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

Conclusion: Pending eviction proceedings did not automatically abate merely because Section 3(c) came into force; they continued if saved by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

Issue (ii): Whether a tenant has a vested right under rent control legislation and whether a landlord has a vested right under the grounds of eviction in Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

Analysis: The Court held that rent control legislation is protective in character and confers only statutory shelter on the tenant for so long as the statute operates; it does not create a vested right in the tenant to insist on continued application of the repealed protection. At the same time, the grounds in Section 14 are not a vested right of the landlord in the abstract, because they are contained in a proviso to a provision whose main object is tenant protection. The landlord's position is better described as a privilege or accrued right when proceedings have already been initiated on a recognized ground such as sub-letting.

Conclusion: The tenant had no vested right in the continuance of rent control protection, and the landlord did not have a vested right in the eviction grounds as such, though an accrued right or privilege could arise in pending proceedings.

Issue (iii): Whether Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 saves the landlord's accrued right and the pending eviction proceedings.

Analysis: Section 6 preserves rights, privileges, liabilities, and legal proceedings in respect of repealed enactments unless a different intention appears. The Court held that once the eviction petition had been filed before repeal, the landlord had at least an accrued right and privilege to continue the proceeding, and the pending action was protected by clauses (c) and (e) of Section 6. The Court therefore rejected the argument that the landlord was driven only to common law remedies in the civil court and held that the Rent Controller retained jurisdiction over the pending matter.

Conclusion: Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 saved the pending eviction proceeding before the Rent Controller and preserved the landlord's accrued right to pursue that proceeding.

Final Conclusion: The amendment did not divest the Rent Controller of jurisdiction over the pending eviction case, and the landlord was required to proceed in that forum rather than pursue parallel remedies. The appeals by the tenant therefore failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a protective rent-control provision is withdrawn, a tenant acquires no vested right to insist on the continuance of that protection, but pending eviction proceedings already instituted are saved by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 as accrued rights and continuing legal proceedings, absent a contrary legislative intention.

---