Amended tenancy remedy provisions apply to post-amendment ejectment proceedings; no vested right exists to the earlier procedure.

An amended proviso to Section 28(1) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 applied to an ejectment proceeding started after the amendment came into force. A landlord's ability to seek eviction under the statute was treated as a right to invoke a statutory remedy, not an accrued or vested right merely because earlier defaults had occurred. Because both the possession application and the tenancy termination notice were issued after the amendment, the revised requirement governed the proceeding. Compliance with intimation of each default within six months was therefore necessary for the landlord to succeed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amended proviso to Section 28(1) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, requiring intimation of each default within six months, applied to an ejectment proceeding initiated after the amendment came into force.

Analysis: The right asserted by the landlord was only a right to take advantage of the statutory remedy. Such a right does not become an accrued or vested right merely because earlier defaults had occurred. The application for possession was made after the amendment had come into force, and even the notice terminating the tenancy was issued after the amendment. In these circumstances, the amended proviso governed the proceeding.

Conclusion: The amended proviso applied, and the landlord could not succeed without compliance with the requirement of intimation within six months of each default.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere right to invoke a statutory remedy is not an accrued right, so an amendment affecting that remedy applies to proceedings commenced after the amendment unless a contrary intention is shown.

---