https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285812 A pending application for fixation of standard rent under the Delhi Rent Control Act did not survive the amendment to Section 3(c), because the statutory ability to seek rent fixation was treated as a mere advantage under the statute and not as an accrued or vested right. The tenant's protection against paying rent above standard rent under Section 4 was recognised as a protective entitlement, while the landlord's contractual rights were treated as vested rights. The doctrine of actus curiae neminem gravabit was considered inapplicable, since delay by the court could not convert a non-accrued statutory benefit into an enforceable right. The amended provision therefore applied to the pending claim. en-us Thu, 18 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Jan 2020 10:09:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285812 A pending application for fixation of standard rent under the Delhi Rent Control Act did not survive the amendment to Section 3(c), because the statutory ability to seek rent fixation was treated as a mere advantage under the statute and not as an accrued or vested right. The tenant's protection against paying rent above standard rent under Section 4 was recognised as a protective entitlement, while the landlord's contractual rights were treated as vested rights. The doctrine of actus curiae neminem gravabit was considered inapplicable, since delay by the court could not convert a non-accrued statutory benefit into an enforceable right. The amended provision therefore applied to the pending claim. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 18 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285812