Broad construction of pending proceedings under rent control amendment extended tenant protection to appeals still open when the law commenced.

The West Bengal Rent Control amendment was construed to apply where the time to appeal had not expired when the amendment commenced, because "pending" in Section 5 was read broadly to include a matter still capable of being carried into appeal in the ordinary course. The amended definition of "tenant" was also treated as extending protection to persons whose tenancy interest had been determined by default under the earlier Act, removing the basis of the prior restrictive view. On that construction, the appellate court was bound to apply the amended law to the decree under appeal, and the relief granted to the tenant was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal filed after the commencement of the amending Act, but within the period of limitation, could be treated as a pending proceeding for the purpose of Section 5 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Act LXII of 1950, and whether the amended tenant definition and relief provisions protected a tenant whose interest had been determined for default under the earlier Act.

Analysis: The suit had been instituted and decided before the amending Act came into force, but the time for filing an appeal had not expired when the amendment commenced. The expression "pending" in Section 5 was construed not in a narrow technical sense, but so as to include a case where an appeal was later filed in the ordinary course and the matter was still capable of being carried into appeal when the amendment took effect. The amending Act also substituted the definition of "tenant" so as to include persons whose interest had been ipso facto determined under Section 12(3) of the earlier Rent Control Act, and the court treated this as removing the basis on which the earlier view had denied relief. On that construction, the appellate court was required to apply the amended law to the decree under appeal.

Conclusion: The appeal was not entitled to succeed; the amended Act applied to the matter, and the lower appellate court's decision granting relief to the tenant was upheld.

---