Saving of pending rights under an amending tenancy law, with a liberal reading of the amended thika tenant definition.

An amending Act that applies to pending suits and proceedings does not, without clear contrary intention, extinguish accrued rights or invalidate proceedings already begun under the repealed provision; the general saving rule continues to preserve them. The court also held that the amended definition of "thika tenant" was satisfied on the evidence where the tenancy was in a bustee for residential use and the huts had been acquired by purchase from the landlord, with the registered lease and continued holding over supporting that character. The remedial tenancy statute was construed liberally in favour of the protected class, and relief under the amended Act was available.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the omission of Section 28 by the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Amendment Act, 1953 rendered the pending proceeding under the repealed provision incompetent, or whether the general saving rule preserved it. (ii) Whether, on the amended definition of "thika tenant", the petitioners were entitled to relief under Section 28.

Issue (i): Whether the omission of Section 28 by the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Amendment Act, 1953 rendered the pending proceeding under the repealed provision incompetent, or whether the general saving rule preserved it.

Analysis: The amendment was held to apply to all pending suits, appeals and proceedings, but the language did not clearly evince an intention to extinguish rights already accrued or to nullify proceedings already commenced under the old provision. The word "amended" was construed in its broader sense, covering additions, substitutions and omissions, yet the proviso was read as extending the amended Act to pending matters rather than deeming the amended law to have existed from the inception of the original Act. In the absence of a clear contrary intention, the saving principle under Section 8 of the Bengal General Clauses Act was held to continue to operate. The remedial nature of the statute and the legislative object of protecting thika tenants reinforced a liberal construction in favour of pending claims.

Conclusion: The pending proceeding remained competent and was not barred by the omission of Section 28.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the amended definition of "thika tenant", the petitioners were entitled to relief under Section 28.

Analysis: On the evidence, the tenancy satisfied the amended definition. The land was taken in a bustee area for residential purpose, and the acquisition of huts by purchase from the landlord was sufficient under the amended definition, even though the tenant had not erected them himself. The registered lease for three years and continued holding over also supported the character of the tenancy as falling within the statutory definition as amended. The earlier restrictive view was displaced by the amended statutory criteria.

Conclusion: The petitioners were thika tenants and were entitled to relief under the amended Act.

Final Conclusion: The revisional application succeeded, the order dismissing the application under Section 28 was set aside, and the matter was remanded for disposal according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an amending Act applies its provisions to pending proceedings without clearly excluding the general saving rule, accrued rights and pending proceedings under the earlier law are preserved, and a remedial tenancy statute must be construed liberally to advance the protection intended for the class of tenants concerned.

---