Exemption notifications survive repeal when saved by statute, preserving civil court jurisdiction in landlord ejectment disputes.

An exemption notification issued under the repealed rent restriction law continued to operate after repeal and re-enactment because the saving provisions preserved prior notifications and actions, and the later amendment did not extinguish that exemption. The court found no inconsistency between the Government's power to exempt classes of buildings and the continued effect of the earlier notification. As a result, the civil court retained jurisdiction to entertain the landlord's ejectment suit, and the tenant's jurisdictional objection failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the exemption notification issued under the repealed rent restriction law continued to operate after repeal and re-enactment, so that the civil court retained jurisdiction to entertain the landlord's suit for ejectment of the tenant from the non-residential building.

Analysis: The notification issued under Section 3 of the earlier Act exempted buildings constructed during specified years from the rent restriction regime. On repeal of the old Act and re-enactment of the law, Section 22 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898, preserved notifications issued under the repealed statute so far as they were not inconsistent with the re-enacted provisions, and Section 24(2) of the new Act likewise continued actions taken under the old law. The later amendment of 1978, read with the deeming language that the substituted provision was always deemed to have been in force, did not extinguish the earlier exemption notification. The statutory scheme showed no inconsistency between the Government's power to exempt classes of buildings and the existence of the earlier notification. The civil court therefore had jurisdiction when the suit was instituted.

Conclusion: The civil court's jurisdiction was upheld and the exemption notification remained valid and operative against the tenant's objection.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the jurisdictional challenge, and the decree for ejectment and arrears of rent in favour of the respondent stood affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute is repealed and re-enacted, an exemption notification issued under the repealed law continues to operate under the re-enacted law if it is not inconsistent with the new provisions and the repealing statute preserves prior actions and notifications.

---