https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128131 Fixity of tenure under the proviso to section 3(1)(vii) was unavailable because the tenant was in persistent rent default and had committed wilful waste that materially damaged the holding, so he had no protected status on the relevant date. Sections 108(2), 108(3), 125(1) and 125(3) were construed as prospective and could not reopen the decree, displace the saving for pending proceedings, or compel reference to the Land Tribunal where no qualifying right existed. Sections 50-A, 52 and 73 were also unavailable because the holding fell within an exempted category and the tenant's own conduct disentitled him from those benefits. The eviction decree and ancillary reliefs were upheld. en-us Mon, 01 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128131 Fixity of tenure under the proviso to section 3(1)(vii) was unavailable because the tenant was in persistent rent default and had committed wilful waste that materially damaged the holding, so he had no protected status on the relevant date. Sections 108(2), 108(3), 125(1) and 125(3) were construed as prospective and could not reopen the decree, displace the saving for pending proceedings, or compel reference to the Land Tribunal where no qualifying right existed. Sections 50-A, 52 and 73 were also unavailable because the holding fell within an exempted category and the tenant's own conduct disentitled him from those benefits. The eviction decree and ancillary reliefs were upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 01 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128131