Prospective operation of statutory tenancy remedies preserves accrued civil suits where dispossession occurred before the Act began.

Section 99 of the Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 was treated as creating a substantive statutory remedy and, absent clear legislative intent, it was construed prospectively only. Because the alleged wrongful dispossession occurred before 7 September 1926, the earlier civil right of suit was regarded as an accrued vested right that could not be displaced by implication. On that construction, Section 99 did not govern the dispute and the civil court's jurisdiction was not barred by Section 230.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 99 of the Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 applied to a suit based on ejectment or resistance to possession that occurred before 7 September 1926, and whether the civil court's jurisdiction was barred.

Analysis: The suit, as amended, sought declaration of title and in the alternative possession. The controlling question was whether the new tenancy remedy could be invoked where the alleged wrongful dispossession had occurred before the commencement of the Act. The reasoning treated Section 99 as creating a substantive remedy, not a mere matter of procedure, and emphasised that statutes are ordinarily construed prospectively unless a clear contrary intention appears. The language "otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act" was read as pointing to events occurring after the Act came into force. The earlier right to sue in the civil court, with its existing period of limitation, was treated as a vested right that should not be taken away by implication. On that construction, Section 99 did not govern the dispute, and the bar under Section 230 did not operate.

Conclusion: Section 99 did not apply to a cause of action that arose before 7 September 1926, and the civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit.

Ratio Decidendi: A new statutory remedy that is expressed in terms referable to the Act itself will not be applied retrospectively to defeat an accrued right of suit unless the legislature clearly indicates that intention.

---