Rent-control notification survives repeal and bars eviction on a bare termination notice without statutory permission.

A rent-control notification extending tenant protection to Doiwala was held to survive repeal and reenactment under the general savings provision, because it was neither expressly displaced nor inconsistent with the later law. The court treated the 31 March 1949 notification as continuing in force under section 24 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904. As the area remained under rent-control protection, eviction could not be sustained on a bare notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act without the required statutory permission. The tenancy protection therefore continued, and the eviction suit failed on the impugned notice.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the tenancy was protected under the earlier rent control law by virtue of the notification applying it to Doiwala area; (ii) whether the notification dated 31 March 1949 continued after repeal and reenactment by operation of section 24 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904; (iii) whether the landlord's notice terminating tenancy under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was valid.

Issue (i): whether the tenancy was protected under the earlier rent control law by virtue of the notification applying it to Doiwala area.

Analysis: The notification issued in 1949 applied the rent control provisions to Doiwala town and thereby extended tenant-protective restrictions against eviction to the area. The later re-enacted rent law continued to regulate eviction on substantially similar grounds, and there was nothing in the later enactment showing an intention to withdraw that protection from the area.

Conclusion: The tenancy was protected under the earlier rent control law as applied to Doiwala area.

Issue (ii): whether the notification dated 31 March 1949 continued after repeal and reenactment by operation of section 24 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904.

Analysis: Section 24 provides that a notification issued under a repealed enactment continues in force after reenactment so far as it is not inconsistent with the re-enacted provisions, unless expressly displaced or superseded. The 1949 notification was neither expressly excluded nor superseded, and no inconsistency existed between it and the later rent control provisions. A notification is a statutory instrument and can survive repeal under the saving rule.

Conclusion: The notification dated 31 March 1949 continued in force under section 24 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904.

Issue (iii): whether the landlord's notice terminating tenancy under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was valid.

Analysis: Since the Doiwala area remained covered by the continuing notification and the tenant retained statutory protection, eviction could not be founded on a bare notice under the Transfer of Property Act without the required statutory permission. The notice could not override the rent control protection that remained operative at the relevant time.

Conclusion: The notice terminating tenancy was not valid for sustaining the eviction suit.

Final Conclusion: The tenant's statutory protection survived the repeal and reenactment, so the eviction suit could not stand on the impugned notice, though limited time was granted for handing over possession on equitable terms.

Ratio Decidendi: A notification extending a protective statute to a local area continues after repeal and reenactment under the general savings provision unless it is expressly displaced, superseded, or inconsistent with the re-enacted law.

---