Substituted statutory provision governs pending eviction proceedings absent contrary intent; unamended provision cannot be applied.

Where an amending enactment substitutes a new provision for an existing one, the original provision ceases to operate and the substituted provision applies as part of the law, unless a contrary legislative intent or repugnancy is shown. On that principle, the substituted Section 21(2) of the Mysore Rent Control Act governed eviction proceedings already pending when the amendment came into force. As no contrary intention or inconsistency was demonstrated, the courts below erred in applying the unamended provision, and the matter was directed to be reheard and disposed of according to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the substituted Section 21(2) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961, introduced by Section 7 of Mysore Act No. 14 of 1969, applied to eviction proceedings that were already pending when the amendment came into force.

Analysis: Where an amending enactment substitutes a new provision for an existing one, the original provision ceases to exist and the substituted provision takes its place in the statute as if it had been part of the law from the outset, unless a contrary legislative intent or repugnancy is shown. The amendment in question was enacted by substitution, the proceedings were pending when it came into force, and no inconsistency or contrary intention was demonstrated. The amended provision therefore governed the pending eviction proceedings, and the courts below erred in applying the unamended provision.

Conclusion: The substituted Section 21(2) applied to the pending case, and the orders passed below were set aside with a direction to rehear and dispose of the matter according to law.

---