https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277969 The court held that the revisional application was competent despite the omission of Section 28 from the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, by the Amendment Act, 1953. The court interpreted that the amended provisions applied to pending proceedings without nullifying rights accrued under the repealed section. Additionally, the petitioners were deemed 'thika tenants' under the amended definition due to their long-term occupation of the land. Consequently, the application succeeded, and the case was remanded for further proceedings, with each party bearing their own costs. en-us Wed, 09 Sep 1953 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Jan 2019 18:11:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277969 The court held that the revisional application was competent despite the omission of Section 28 from the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, by the Amendment Act, 1953. The court interpreted that the amended provisions applied to pending proceedings without nullifying rights accrued under the repealed section. Additionally, the petitioners were deemed 'thika tenants' under the amended definition due to their long-term occupation of the land. Consequently, the application succeeded, and the case was remanded for further proceedings, with each party bearing their own costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 09 Sep 1953 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277969