Pending writ proceedings preserved rent-control relief where the tenant's default was not wilful and arrears were cleared.

A writ petition for certiorari was treated as keeping the underlying rent-control matter pending, so the remedial amendment under Section 20 of Madras Act VIII of 1951 applied to the dispute. The amended proviso to Section 7(2) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949 protected a tenant where default in rent payment was not wilful and arrears had been cleared before hearing. On those facts, the tenant fell within the statutory protection and eviction could not be sustained; the eviction order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition for certiorari could be treated as a pending proceeding so as to attract Section 20 of Madras Act VIII of 1951. (ii) Whether the amended proviso to Section 7(2) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949 applied where the tenant's default in payment of rent was not wilful.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition for certiorari could be treated as a pending proceeding so as to attract Section 20 of Madras Act VIII of 1951.

Analysis: Section 20 directed that pending applications, appeals, and other proceedings should be disposed of as if the amending Act had been in force when they were instituted. The appeal against the Rent Controller's order had been disposed of before the writ was decided, but the supervisory challenge in the High Court kept the appellate decision under examination. The proceeding for certiorari was therefore treated as continuing the pendency of the matter for the purposes of the amendment.

Conclusion: Section 20 applied, and the proceeding was held to be pending within the meaning of the amending Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the amended proviso to Section 7(2) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949 applied where the tenant's default in payment of rent was not wilful.

Analysis: The amended proviso empowered relief where the Controller was satisfied that the tenant's default was not wilful and permitted time to pay the rent before making an eviction order. The arrears had been cleared by the time the application was heard, and the default was found to be technical rather than wilful. On that footing, the tenant came within the protective scope of the proviso.

Conclusion: The amended proviso applied, and eviction could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The eviction order was set aside because the amendment governed the pending matter and the tenant's default was found to be non-wilful.

Ratio Decidendi: A pending supervisory proceeding can keep the underlying appeal alive for the purpose of an intervening remedial amendment, and where the amended rent-control provision protects a tenant whose default is not wilful, eviction cannot be ordered once the rent has been paid.

---