1956 (12) TMI 48 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Clarifies Impact of Repeal on Pending Proceedings: Bengal General Clauses Act

Tarak Chandra Mukherjee And Ors. Versus Ratan Lal Ghosal And Ors.

The court held that the repeal of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950 did not affect pending proceedings due to the application of Section 8 ... - Issues Involved:1. Effect of the repeal of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 by Act XII of 1956 on pending proceedings.2. Applicability of Section 12 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950 to ongoing proceedings.3. Continuation of proceedings under Section 32(4) of the repealed Act.4. Interpretation of the new Section 40 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1956.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Effect of the Repeal on Pending Proceedings:The judgment discusses the implications of the repeal of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950 on pending proceedings. It is established that the Act was repealed on its last day of existence, March 31, 1956. The court emphasizes that the repeal did not contain a saving clause, which led to the application of Section 8 of the Bengal General Clauses Act. This section saves rights and liabilities accrued under the repealed Act and allows for the continuation of proceedings as if the repealing Act had not been passed. However, it is highlighted that this saving provision only extends the life of the repealed Act up to its original expiry date, after which the principles applicable to expired temporary statutes come into play.2. Applicability of Section 12 of the 1950 Act to Ongoing Proceedings:The court examines whether Section 12 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950 could still be applied in ongoing proceedings after the Act's repeal. It is concluded that the Act could be applied in ongoing proceedings only if it was alive at the time for the purposes of pending proceedings. The court asserts that the Act of 1950, being a temporary Act, expired on March 31, 1956, and thus, Section 8 of the Bengal General Clauses Act could not extend its life beyond this date.3. Continuation of Proceedings under Section 32(4) of the Repealed Act:The judgment addresses the continuation of proceedings under Section 32(4) of the repealed Act. It is noted that the proceedings pending before the High Court under this section would terminate automatically with the expiry of the Act on March 31, 1956, unless something else kept them alive. The court concludes that the new Section 40 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1956, which was introduced after the hearing of the references, does not effectively keep these proceedings alive beyond the original expiry date of the repealed Act.4. Interpretation of the New Section 40 of the 1956 Act:The court discusses the implications of the new Section 40 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1956, which was enacted to save pending proceedings and authorize new institutions for enforcing rights and liabilities accrued under the repealed Act. The court acknowledges the retrospective effect of the amendment and its intent to save pending proceedings. However, it highlights the infelicities in the language of the new Section 40 and the challenges in interpreting it. Despite these challenges, the court concludes that the new Section 40 effectively keeps the Act of 1950 alive for the purposes of all proceedings pending on March 31, 1956, and also pending at the date of the amendment, in which the application of the Act was called for.Conclusion:The court answers the questions referred to it in the affirmative, owing to the substitution of a new Section 40 in the Act of 1956 since the reference was made. The cases are sent back to the referring Bench for final decisions, with costs in the second appeal, Letters Patent Appeal, and Civil Revision Case respectively.