https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168509 Pending proceedings validly transferred to the Controller under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 were not divested of jurisdiction by the later deletion of section 29, because omission of a provision does not undo proceedings already lawfully pending unless a contrary intention appears. The landlord's eviction claim also failed because section 3 of the Act did not override the lease's express requirement of six months' notice ending with the term. As no such contractual notice had been given, eviction could not be maintained. en-us Thu, 22 Sep 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:10:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168509 Pending proceedings validly transferred to the Controller under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 were not divested of jurisdiction by the later deletion of section 29, because omission of a provision does not undo proceedings already lawfully pending unless a contrary intention appears. The landlord's eviction claim also failed because section 3 of the Act did not override the lease's express requirement of six months' notice ending with the term. As no such contractual notice had been given, eviction could not be maintained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 22 Sep 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168509