https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168312 Withdrawal of tenant protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act did not give tenants a vested right to insist on the continuance of that protection. Pending eviction proceedings already filed before the Rent Controller did not abate, because Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 preserved accrued rights, privileges and continuing legal proceedings unless a contrary intention appeared. The landlord's interest in the pending petition was treated as an accrued right or privilege, not a vested right in the abstract eviction grounds, and the Rent Controller retained jurisdiction over the existing matter. en-us Mon, 27 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:02:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168312 Withdrawal of tenant protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act did not give tenants a vested right to insist on the continuance of that protection. Pending eviction proceedings already filed before the Rent Controller did not abate, because Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 preserved accrued rights, privileges and continuing legal proceedings unless a contrary intention appeared. The landlord's interest in the pending petition was treated as an accrued right or privilege, not a vested right in the abstract eviction grounds, and the Rent Controller retained jurisdiction over the existing matter. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 27 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168312