Retrospective rent-relief provision and directory default clause protected the tenant from eviction despite delayed rent deposit.

Retrospective rent-relief legislation was construed to extend to pending suits and appeals, so the tenant could invoke the amended provision even though the original one-month period from service of summons had expired. The filing period was treated as running from the commencement of the amendment, because any reading that made the retrospective clause ineffective would defeat the remedial object of the statute. On delayed deposit of rent for two months, the default-striking provision was read together with the relief scheme and treated as directory in the circumstances. As the default was technical rather than substantial, the tenant's defence was not struck out and eviction could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the tenant was entitled to invoke the amended rent-relief provision in a pending suit despite the original one-month period from service of summons having expired. (ii) Whether delayed deposit of rent for two months necessarily required striking out of the tenant's defence and eviction.

Issue (i): Whether the tenant was entitled to invoke the amended rent-relief provision in a pending suit despite the original one-month period from service of summons having expired.

Analysis: The amendment was given retrospective effect to all pending suits and appeals. Reading the amended provision with the retrospective clause showed that the legislature intended to extend the benefit to tenants in pending proceedings, and the filing period had to be computed from the commencement of the amendment, not from the original service of summons. A construction that made the retrospective clause meaningless was rejected in favour of one that preserved the remedial object of the statute.

Conclusion: The tenant was entitled to apply under the amended provision and the application was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether delayed deposit of rent for two months necessarily required striking out of the tenant's defence and eviction.

Analysis: The provisions governing default and relief had to be read together. The relief clause protected a tenant who had made payment in accordance with the statutory scheme, and the proviso limited repeat relief only where default continued for four months within twelve months. The default in question was confined to two months and was technical rather than substantial. The expression directing the defence to be struck out was treated as directory, leaving the Court with discretion to refuse harsh consequences where the default was inconsequential and the statutory purpose would otherwise be defeated.

Conclusion: The delayed payments did not justify striking out the defence or sustaining the eviction decree.

Final Conclusion: The tenant was held entitled to the statutory protection against eviction, and the eviction decree could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: A remedial rent-control provision giving retrospective benefit to pending proceedings must be construed purposively, and a default-striking clause may be read as directory where the default is technical and substantial justice requires extension of time.

---