Holding

Pending eviction proceedings initiated under the Delhi Rent Control Act continue before the Rent Controller, saved by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, despite the amendment removing the Act’s jurisdiction for such tenancies.

Summary

The landlord filed an eviction petition against the tenant under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the ground of illegal sub‑letting. While the petition was pending, Section 3(c) of the Act was amended (effective 1‑Dec‑1988) to exclude premises with rent above Rs 3,500 from the Act’s jurisdiction. The tenant argued that the amendment removed the Rent Controller’s jurisdiction, leaving only the civil courts, whereas the landlord contended that the pending proceeding should continue before the Rent Controller under the protection of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The Court held that the amendment did not create a vested right for the landlord, but the landlord’s right to seek eviction was an accrued right saved by Section 6(c) and (e), allowing the pending proceeding to continue before the Rent Controller. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the Rent Controller retained jurisdiction and ordered the landlord to withdraw the parallel civil suit. The appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the amendment inserting Section 3(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act extinguishes the Rent Controller's jurisdiction over pending eviction proceedings.
Whether a ground of eviction based on illegal sub‑letting under Section 14(1)(b) constitutes a vested right of the landlord.
Whether Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applies to save pending proceedings when a protective rent‑control provision is repealed.

Legislation cited

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958s. 14(1)(b), s. 3(c)
General Clauses Act, 1897s. 6
Transfer of Property Acts. 106, s. 111

Subjects

rent controlevictionSection 6 General Clauses Actvested rightprotective rightjurisdictionpending proceedingssub‑letting

Judgment

MIS. AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD. A
V.

MIS. AMRIT LAL AND CO. AND ANR.

AUGUST 27, 2001

[A.P. MISRA AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] B

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Sections 3(c) and 14(1) (b).

Rent Control-Eviction proceedings-Section 3(c) coming into force
during pendency of proceedings-Effect of-Held Section 6 of the General C
Clauses Act was applicable-Held pending proceedings before Rent Controller
were not affected

General Clauses Act, 1897 :

- D
Section 6-Scope and applicability of

The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition against the appellant-
tenant on the ground of sub-letting under section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958. During the pendency of this petition section 3(c) was
incorporated in the Act by Amendment which become effective rro·m
1.12.1998. This section excluded the Jurisdiction of Rent Controller with E
respect to those tenancies whose monthly rent exceeds Rs. 3500. The question
for consideration is : what is the effect of this amendment on the pending
eviction proceedings. The appellant-tenant contended that it is the Civil Court
alone which has the Jurisdiction after the aforesaid amendment and not the
Rent Controller, while respondent-landlord submitted that notwithstanding F
the aforesaid amendment it is the Rent Controller who would have the
Jurisdiction. From these submissions the following questions arose for
consideration :

(1) Whether the landlord and tenant are relegated to seek their rights
and remedies under the common law once the protection given to a tenant G
under rent control legislation is withdrawn through amendment ?

(2) Can a ground of eviction based on illegal subletting under proviso
(b) to Section 14 of the said Act be claimed by a landlord as a vested right?

(3) In case a protection given to a tenant under the Rent Act is said to H
195
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A be not a vested right and if that protection is withdrawn, can a landlord claim
any ground of eviction under the Rent Act to be his vested rights ?

Disposing the appeals, the Court

HELD : I. A landlord or tenant is relegated t(/ seek his rights and
B remedies under the common law once the protection given to a tenant under
the Rent Act is withdrawn, except in cases where section 6 of the General
Clauses Act, 1897 is applicable. [217-DI

2. A ground of eviction based on illegal subletting under proviso (b) to
section 14 of the Rent Act would not constitute to be a vested right of a
C landlord, but it would be a right and privilege accrued within the meaning of
section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act in a matter if proceeding for eviction
is pending. 1217-E)

3. When tenant has not vested right under a Rent Act having only
protective right, withdrawal of such protection would not confer on a landlord
D a vested right to evict a tenant under Rent Act except where sub-clause (c) of
section 6 of the General Clauses Act is applicable. [217-F)

4. As a general rule, in view of section 6 of the General clauses Act the
-
repeal of a statute, which is not retrospective in operation, does not prima
E facie affect the pending proceedings which may be continued as if the repealed
enactment were still in force. Thus a pending proceeding before the Rent
Controller for the eviction of a tenant on the date when the repealing Act
came into force would not be affected by the repealing statute and will be
continued and concluded in accordance with the law as existed under the
repealed statute. Siu.ce proceeding for the eviction of the tenant was pending
F when repealing Act came into operation, section 6 of the General Clauses Act
would be applicable in the present case. Therefore, the Rent Controller has
the Jurisdiction over the subject matter. [211-A; 217-C)

5. When a lis commences, all rights and obligations of the parties get
crystalised on that date. The mandate of section 6 is simply to leave the
G pending proceedings unaffected which commenced under the unrepeated
provisions unless contrary intention is expressed. Clause (c) of section 6, refers
the words "any right, privilege, obligation ... acquired or accrued'' under the
repealed statute would not be affected by the repealing statute. However, mer.e
existence of a right not being 'acquired' or 'accrued', on the date of the repeal
H would not get protection of section 6. At the most such a provision can be
AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD. v. AMRIT LAL AND CO. J97
said to be granting a privilege to the landlord to seek intervention of the A
Controller for eviction of the tenant under the statute. Such a privilege is not
a benefit vested in general but is a benefit granted and may be enforced by
approaching the Controller in the manner prescribed under the statute. On
filing the petition for eviction of the tenant the privilege accrued with the
landlord is not affected by repeal of the Act in view of Section 6(c) and the B
pending proceeding is saved under section 6(e) of the Act. (211.-B-C-D-E]

6. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act covers wider field and saves
wide range of proceedings referred to in its various sub-clauses. There are
two sets of cases, one where section 6 is applicable and other where it is not
applicable. In cases where section 6 is not applicable, the courts have to C
scrutinise and find, whether a person under a repealed statute had any \ ested
right. In case he had, then pending proceeding would be saved. However, in
cases where section 6 is applicable, it is not merely a vested right but all those
covered under various sub-clauses from (a) to (e) of section 6. Right and
privilege under it is limited to those which is 'acquired' and 'accrued'. In such
cases pending proceeding is to be continued as if the statute has not been D
repealed. (216-G-H]

~S. Shivananda v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. and Ors.,
[1980] l SCC 149; Bansidhar and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., [1989] 2
SCC 557 and Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City-/ v. Godavari Sagar
Mills Ltd, [1967) l SCR 798, referred to. E
7. Prior to the enactment of the Rent Act the relationship between the
landlord and the tenant was governed by the general law, may be Transfer
of Property Act or any other law in relation to the property. The Rent Act
merely provides a protection to a tenant as against unbridled power of the
landlord under the general law of land. It gives protection to the tenant from F
being ejected except on the grounds referred under the Rent Act. Thus the
right of a tenant under the Rent Act at the best could be said to be a protective
right which cannot be construed to be a vested right. In effect, in view of this
special enactment of the Rent Act, the right and remedies available to a
landlord under the general law remains suspended. [205-H; 206-A-B]
G
D.C. Bhatia and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr., (1995] 1 SCC 104;
Mohinder Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., [1985] 4 SCC 221 and
Parripati Chandrasekharao and Sons. v. Alapati Jalajah, [1995] 3 SCC 709,
referred to.

Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd v. Union ofIndia and Ors., [2000] 2 SCC H
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A 536, held inapplicable.

8. Various sub-clauses under Section 14 cannot be construed to be a
vested right of a landlord. Section 14 gives_ complete protection to a tenant
against his eviction but relaxes it on one of the grounds referred to under its
proviso. The right which is sought to be inferred as vested right is only under
B its proviso. Proviso cannot enlarge the main section. When main section is
only a protective right of a tenant, various sub-clauses of its proviso cannot
be construed as it gives vested right to a landlord. The right if at all could be
said of the landlord it flows only under the protective tenant's umbrella which
cannot be enlarged into a vested right of a landlord. Hence by no stretch of
C imagination it could be held that the landlord has any vested right by virtue
of section 14 of the Rent Act. 1209-C, E, Ff

Jsha Valimohammed and Anr. v. Haji Gu/am Mohammad & Haji Dada
Trust, (1974) 2 SCC 484, referred to.

D 9. As discipline and culture in every walk of life is essential for smooth
functioning in all its activities, similarly judicial culture and discipline has to
be followed in order to achieve the desired result viz. to give litigant justice in
the shortest period of time. Every legislation legislates for the ben~fit of its
subject but many times, raising issues for every thing and stretching it too
long percolates the very objective for which it is made. With the increasing
E complexities of laws cou pied with legislation, using inappropriate language,
a stress is created which the courts through its judicial interpretations have
been attempting to simplify it. In spite of this the hope for an early
adjudication has been eluding like a mirage. With the advancement of legal
studies there is sharpening of the acumen ofadvocacy. Every word ofa statute,
if interpreted when equipped with such dynamism, could be intellectually
F
misused, hence interpreters including counsel, has to keep balance not to let
this misuse surface. As knife in the hand of a murderer and doctor has
different roles to play, so the interpreters have to select to play the role of a
doctor to confer benefit to the subject. The words in a statute are dynamic,
not static, hence have to be interpreted to subserve to the objectives of an
G Act. Such judicial discipline in interpreting has to be followed for yielding
legislative intent. [199-E-Hf

10. To win a battle for a client is the legitimate expectation of all but
in doing so deliberations should not be such which lengthens the litigation,
even if it confers temporary gain to one's client in a·lis. Every member of the
H judicial fraternity has to play its role with the main object to find the truth
AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD. v. AMRITLALANDCO. [MISRA, J.J 199

and render justice to the litigant. This judicial culture has not to be lost sight A
of. The present case is one of such cases, which causes concern in this regard.
[200-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5706 of2001.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.99 of the Delhi High Court B
in S.A.O. No. 5 of 1999.
WITH
C.A. No. 5707/2001.

Pradeep Dewan, Dalip Mehra, Ms. Praveena Gautam and Pramod B. C
Aggarwala for the Appellant.

Rajiv Bahl, Arun K. Sinha and Rakesh Singh for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MISRA, J. Leave granted. D
It is unfortunate, an eviction petition which was filed on the 13th
September 1985 still the parties are battling to find which court would have
the jurisdiction. Whether the court of Rent Controller under Delhi Rent Control
Act or ordinary Civil Court having jurisdiction over the subject matter in E
issue? As discipline and culture in every walk of life is essential for smooth
functioning in all its activities, similarly judicial culture and discipline has to
be followed in order to achieve the desired result viz. to give litigant justice
in the shortest period of time. Every legislation legislates for the benefit of
its subject but many a times, raising issues for every thing and stretching it
too long percolates the very objective for which it is made. With the increasing F
complexities of laws coupled with faulty legislation, using inappropriate
language, a stress is created which the courts through its judicial interpretations
have been attempting to simplify it. In spite of this the hope for an early
adjudication has been eluding like a mirage. With the advancement of legal
studies there is sharpening of the acumen of advocacy. Every word of a
statute, if interpreted when equipped with such dynamism, could be G
intellectually misused, hence interpreters including counsel, has to keep balance
not to let this misuse surface. As knife in the hand of a murderer and doctor
has different roles to play, so the interpreters have to select to play the role
of a doctor to confer benefit to the subject. The words in a statute are dynamic,
not static, hence has to be interpreted to subserve to the objectives of an Act. H
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Such Judicial discipline in interpreting has to be followed for yielding
legislative intent. Similarly judicial culture has to be cultivated even by
counsels appearing for a cause, who has to see that the judicial system does
not rust or get stains for a delayed justice.

To win a battle for a client is the legitimate expectation of all but in
B doing so deliberations should not be such which lengthens the litigation, even
if it confers temporary gain to one's client in a lis. Every member of the
judicial fraternity has to play its role with the main object to find the truth
and render justice to the litigant. This judicial culture has not to be lost sight.
The present case is one of such cases, which causes concern in this regard.
c The aforesaid appeals raise an interesting but somewhat complex
question for adjudication with reference to the jurisdiction of the court. The
question for consideration is, what is the effect of the amendment which
incorporated Section 3(c) in the Delhi Rent Control Act, hereinafter referred
to as the 'Rent Act' in the pending eviction proceedings. Section 3(c) of the
D Rent Act was brought through amendment which became effective from
1.12.1988 which reads as under:

3. Act not to apply to certain premises - Nothing in this Act shall
apply; ..................... .

E (c) to any premises, whether residential or not, whose monthly rent
exceeds three thousand and five hundred rupees; "

In effect it makes Rent Act inapplicable to the tenancies whose monthly rent
exceeds Rs. 3500. It is not in dispute, in the present case, the rate of monthly
rent is Rs.8625/- per month and proceeding for the eviction was pending
F under the Rent Act when the said amendment came into force. In order to
appreciate the controversy effectively we are hereunder giving certain essential
matrix of facts.

The aforesaid two appeals arise out of judgment and order dated 29th
November, 1999 passed by the High Court. The first being from an order in
G second appeal from order No.5/1999 and the second being from an order in
Civil Revision No. I 0/1998.

The High Court allowed landlord's second appeal from order but
dismissed the revision of the tenant. Hence both these appeals are filed by the
tenant. The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition against the appellant
H on the ground of sub-letting as enumerated in Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi
20 I
AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD. v. AMRIT LAL AND CO. [MISRA, J.]
. Rent Control Act, in the court of Rent Controller Delhi on the 13.9.1985. A
When this petition was pending, as aforesaid, Section 3(c) was brought in,
through amendment w.e.f. 1.12.1988 by which it excluded the jurisdiction of
Rent Controller with respect to those tenancies fetching monthly rent exceeding
Rs.3500/-. In effect it took away such tenancies from the purview of the
aforesaid Act. Thereafter the landlord sent a notice on 11.9.1991 terminating B
the tenancy of the appellant under Section I 06 of the Transfer of Property
Act. On 18.11.1991 landlord filed a suit for recovery of possession in the
Delhi High Court in its original side which is registered as suit No. 390/1995.
When this fact was brought to the notice of the Additional Rent Controller
that the landlord has already filed a suit appellant prayed that this eviction
petition be dismissed or in the alternative its proceedings be stayed. However, C
the Rent Controller rejected such a request by his order dated 23.11.1992
relying on the ratio of D.C. Bhatia and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr., 56
(1994) DLT 324. Thereafter in the suit the appellant filed an application
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint as parallel proceedings cannot
be continued both before the Rent Controller and the Civil Court. The Trial
Court on 18.10.1997 rejected appellant's aforesaid application. Aggrieved by D
that the appellant filed rev is ion before the High Court.

As aforesaid, in the meanwhile the appellant moved an application
before the Additional Rent Controller under Section 9 read with Section 151
CPC praying that the court of Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to proceed E
with the matter under the aforesaid Act in view of the amendment brought
in the year 1988. The Rent Controller dismissed this application. The Rent
Control Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal and quashed eviction
proceedings. Aggrieved by that landlord filed second appeal from order in
the High Court which was allowed which is the subLect matter of one of the
aforesaid appeal before us. F
So far the appeal arising out of revisional order, the High Court held
the protection enjoyed by the tenant on account of statute was no more in
operation and in such a case parties would be governed by the ordinary
common law, hence respondent-landlord was fully justified in filing a suit for
possession before the Competent Civil Court having jurisdiction. In other G
words High Court held respondent-landlord rightly fiied suit before the Civil
Court.

We may point out here that learned counsel for the appellant, in view
of his submissions which he is making in appeal arising out of judgment and
order in second appeal from order, which we shall be dealing hereinafter, H
202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A does not want to press this appeal, viz., Civil Appeal No. 57071200 I (Arising
out of S.L.P. (C ) No.4233 of 2000), hence it is dismissed.

This takes us to consider only the other appeal. The appellant-tenant
submits, it is the Civil Court alone which has the jurisdiction after the aforesaid
amendment and not the Rent Controller, while respondent-landlord submits,
B notwithstanding the aforesaid amendment it is the Rent Controller which would
have the jurisdiction. From these submissions, following questions arise:

(I) Whether the landlord and tenant are relegated to seek their rights
and remedies under the common law once the protection given to a
tenant under rent control legislation is withdrawn through amendment?
c
(2) Can a ground of eviction based on illegal subletting under proviso
(b) to Section 14 of the said Act be claimed by a landlord as a vested
right?

(3) In case a protection given to a tenant under the Rent Act is said
D to be not a vested right and if that protection is withdrawn, can a
landlord claim any ground of .eviction under the Rent Act to be his
vested right?

Thus question for our consideration is, whether proceedings which were
initiated before the Rent Controller having jurisdiction could continue before
E it even after the said amendment. Submission for tenant is, since tenant has
no vested right on the ·date when amendment came into force and amendment
is not retrospective in operation hence it is only the Civil Court which would
have jurisdiction. On the other hand submission on behalf of the landlord is,
even if it could be said tenant has no vested right, landlord has vested right
F under the Rent Act and further in view of Section 6 of the General Clauses
Act, the pending proceedings would continue before the Rent Controller as
if the amending provision has not come into play. Further it is submitted,
Section 6 spells out, where this Act or any Central Act repeals any enactment
then unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not affect any right,
privilege accrued or incurred under any such enactment so repealed. Since
G landlord in addition to his vested right under the Rent Act, by virtue of this
Section 6 has in any case right under the repealing provision hence the
pending proceeding would continue, as there is nothing in the amending Act
showing any different intention. So the case of tenant-appellant is that
amendment covers pending cases while respondent landlord case is it does
H not cover hence it would not apply to the pending cases.
AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD. v. AMRIT LAL AND CO. [MISRA, J,] 203

First we proceed to examine, whether tenant has any vested right. A
Submission on behalf of the tenant is, a tenant has no vested right
under the Rent Act. If tenants have no vested rights under the Rent Control
Act, the pending proceedings would not be saved from the effect of the
repealing Act. In Mohinder Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.,
[1985] 4 sec 221 this was observed by this Court: B
"The argument that the tenants have acquired a vested right under the
Act prior to its amendment is without any substance. Prior to the
amendment of Section 1(3) by the Amending Act of 1978, the
provision as it originally stood· cannot be said to have conferred any
vested right on the tenants. The provision, as it originally stood prior C
to its amendment, might not have been constitutionally valid as the
exemption sought to be granted was for an indefinite period. That
does not necessarily imply that any vested right in any tenant was
' thereby created. The right claimed is the right to be governed by the
Act prior to its amendment. If the Legislature had thought it tit to D
repeal the entire Act, could the tenant have claimed any such right?
Obviously, they could not have; the question of acquiring any vested
rights really does not arise."

D.C. Bhatia and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr., [1995] 1 SCC 104,
is also a case under the Delhi Rent Control Act where the same Section 3(c) E
which we are considering was brought in through the same Delhi Rent Control
(Amendment) Act, 1988. In this case also submission was, that since the
amending Act is not retrospective, it would not affect the rights conferred on
the tenants under the repealed provisions of the Rent Control Act. This
submission was rejected by this Court. The Court held:
F
"We are unable to uphold this contention for a number of reasons.
Prior to the enactment of the Rent Control Act by the various State
Legislature, the legal relationship between the landlord and tenant
was governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act.
Delhi Rent Control Act provided protection to the tenants from drastic G
enhancement of rent by the landlord as well as eviction, except on
certain specific grounds. The legislature by the Amendment Act No.
57 of 1988 has partially repealed the Delhi Rent Control Act. This is
a case of express repeal. By Amending Act the legislature has
withdrawn the protection hitherto enjoyed by the tenants who were
pa:ring Rs.3500 or above as monthly rent. If the tenants were sought H
204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A to be evicted prior to the amendment of the Act, they could have
taken advantage of the provisions of the Act to resist such eviction
by the landlord. But this was nothing more than a right to take
advantage of the enactment. The tenant enjoyed statutory protection
as long as the statute remained in force and was applicable to him.
If the statute ceases to be operative, th.e tenant cannot claim to continue
B to have the old statutory protection.

In the instant case, the legislature has decided to curtail or take
away the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act from a section of
the tenants. The tenants had not acquired any vested right under the
Delhi Rent Control Act, but had a right to take advantage of the
c provisions of the repealed Act so long as that law remained in force.

In view of the aforesaid, we are unable to uphold the contention
that the tenants had acquired a vested right in the properties occupied
by them under the statute."
D [Emphasis supplied]

Thus this case holds that the tenant under the Rent Act had no vested
right.

Parripati Chandrasekharrao & Sons. v. Alapati Ja/aiah, [ 1995] 3 SCC
E 709. This case deals with the similar provision but under the A.P. Rent
Control Act. This Court held:

"Shri Sitaramiah, leaned counsel appearing for the appellant-
landlord contended that on the coming into operation of the said
notification from 26. l 0.1983, the protection given to the tenant stood
F withdrawn and, therefore, whatever rights he had under the provisions
of the Act, stood extinguished on and from the said date. As against
this, it was contended by Shri Subba Rao for the tenant that the
tenant had acquired vested rights under the Act and they were alive
when the applications were made and he could not be divested of the
G same by the notification which came into operation from a subsequent
date.

According to us there is a material difference between the rights.
which accrue to a landlord under the common law and the protection
which is afforded to the tenant by such legislation as the Act. In the
H former case the rights and remedies of the landlord and tenant are

' '
AMBALAL SA RAB HAI ENTERPRISES LTD. v. AMRIT LAL AND CO. [MISRA, I.] 205

governed by the law of contract and law governing the property A
relations. These rights and remedies continue to govern their
relationship unless they are regulated by such protective legislation
as the present Act in which case the said rights and remedies remain
suspended till the protective legislation continues in operation. Hence
while it can legitimately be said that the landlord's normal rights B
vested in him by the general law continue to exist till and so long as
they are not abridged by a special protective legislation in the case
of the tenant, the protective shield extended to him survives only so
long as and to the extent the special legislation operates. In the case
of the tenant, therefore, the protection does not create any vested
right which can operate beyond the period of protection or during the C
period the protection is not in existence. When the protection does
not exist, the normal relations of the landlord and tenant come into
operation. Hence, the theory of the vested right which may validly be
pleaded to support the landlord's case is not available to the tenant.
It is for this reason that the analogy sought to be drawn by Shri
Subbarao between the landlord's and the tenant's rights relying upon D
the decision of this Court in Atma Ram Mittal is misplaced. In that
case the landlord's normal right to evict the tenant from the premises
was not interfered with for the first ten years of the construction of
the premises by an exemption specifically incorporated in the
protective rent legislation in question. The normal right was obviously E
the vested right under the general and once accrued it continued to
operate. The protection given to the tenant by the rent legislation
came into operation after the expiry of the period of ten years. Hence,
notwithstanding the coming into operation of the protection and in
the a~sence of the provisions to the contrary, the proceedings already
commenced on the basis of the vested right could not be defeated by F
mere passage of time consumed by the said proceedings. It is for this
reasons that the Court there held that the right which had accrued to
the landlord being a vested right could not be denied to him by the
efflux of time."

. The aforesaid decision holds that tenants have no vested right under the G
Rent act. In effect, the law is well settled. Prior to the enactment of the Rent
Act the relationship between the landlord and the tenant is governed by the
general law, may be Transfer of Property Act or any other law in relation to
the property. The Rent Act merely provides a protection to a tenant as against
unbridled power of the landlord under the general law of the land. The Rent H
206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Act gives protection to the tenant from being ejected except on the grounds
referred under the Rent Act. In other words, it protects the tenant from
ejectment, it protects a tenant from the drastic enhancement of the rent by the
landlord which may otherwise landlord could do under the general law. Thus
the right of a tenant under the Rent Act at the best could be said to be a
protective right which cannot be construed to be a vested right. In effect, in
B view of this special enactment of the Rent Act, the right and remedies available
to a landlord under the general law remains suspended. In other words the
landlord's vested right under the general law continue so long it is not abridged
by such protective legislation, but the moment when this protection is
withdrawn the landlord's normal vested right reappears which could be
C enforced by him.
In Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd v. Union of India and Ors., [2000]
2 SCC 536, this Court held:

"The position is well known that at common law, the normal effect
D of repealing a statute or deleting a provision is to obliterate it from
the stati.ite book as completely as if it had never been passed, and the
statute must be considered as a law that never existed."

Relying on this the submission for the tenant is, if repealing statute
deletes the provisions, it would mean it never existed hence pending
E proceedings under the Rent Act cannot continue. This submission has no
merits. This is not.a case under the Rent Act, also not a case where Section
6 of the General Clauses Act is applicable. This is a case where repeal of
rules under Central Excise Rule was under consideration. This would have no
bearing on the question we are considering, whether a tenant has any vested
F right or not under a Rent Act?
Submission on behalf of the respondent-landlord is, even if tenant have
no vested right landlord has a vested right under the Rent Act by virtue of
Section I4 of the Delhi Rent Act. Section 14 is quoted hereunder:

"14. Protection of tenant against eviction - (I) Notwithstanding
G anything to the contrary contained in any other law for contract, no
order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall
be made by any court or Controller in favour of the landlo~d against
a tenant:
Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him
H in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession
AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD. v. AMRIT LAL AND CO. [MISRA, J.] 207

of the pr~mises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely: A
(a) that the tenant has neither paid or tendered the whole of the
arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two
months of the date on which a notice of demand for the
arrears has been served on him by the landlord in the manner
provided in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, B
1992 (4 of 1882);

(b) that the tenant has, on or after the 9th day of June, 1942,
sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of
the whole or any part of the premises without obtaining the
consent in writing of the landlord; c
(c) that the tenant has used the premises for a purpose other
than that for which they were let -

(i) if the premises have been let on or after the 9th day of
June, 1952, without obtaining the consent in writing of the D
landlord; or (ii) if the premises have been let before the said
date without obtaining his consent;

(d) that the premises were let for use as a residence and neither
the tenant nor any member of his family has been residing
therein for a period of six months immediately before the E
date of the filing of the application for the recovery of
possession thereof;

(e) that the premises let for residential purposes are required
bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for
himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, F
if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose
benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such
person has no other reasonably suitable residential
accommodation;

Explanation - For the purposes of this clause, "premises let for G
residential purposes" include any premises which having been let for
use as a residence are, without the consent of the landlord, used
incidentally for commercial or other purposes;

(f) that the premises have become unsafe or unfit for human
habitation and are required bona fide by the landlord for carrying H
'
208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A out repairs which cannot be carried out without the premises
being vacated;
(g) that the premises are required bona fide by the landlord for the
purpose of building or re-building or making thereto any
substantial additions or alterations and that such building or re-
B building or addition or alteration cannot be carried out without
the premises being vacated;
(h) that the tenant has, whether before or after the commencement
of this Act, acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted, a
residence;
c (hh) that the tenant has, after the commencement of the Delhi Rent
Control (Amendment) Act, 1988, built a residence and ten years
have elapsed thereafter;
(i) that the premises were let to the tenant for use as a residence by
reason of his being in the service or employment of the landlord,
D and that the tenant has ceased, whether before or after the
commencement of this Act, to be in such service or employment;
G) that the tenant has, whether before or after the commencement
of this Act, causes or permitted to be caused substantial damage
to the premises;
E
(k) that the tenant has, notwithstanding previous notice, used or dealt
with the premises in a manner contrary to any condition imposed
on the landlord by the Government or the Delhi Development
Authority or the Municipal Corporation of Delhi while giving
him a lease of the land on which the premises are situate;
F (I) that the landlord requires the premises in order to carry out any
building work at the instance of the Government or the Delhi
Development Authority or the Municipal Corporation of Delhi
in pursuance of any improvement scheme or development scheme
and that such building work cannot be carried out without the
G premises being vacated."

Under Clause (a) landlord could evict a tenant if he defaults in the
payment of rent. Under Clause (b) if he sublets the premises in question,
under Clause (c) if he uses the premises other than that for which it was let,
under Clause (d) if he or any member of his family is not residing therein
H for a period of 6 months, under (e) premises is bonafide required by landlord,
{'MBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD. v. AMRIT LAL AND CO. [MISRA, J.) 209

under (f) premises is unfit for human habitation, under (g) premises is required A
for rebuilding, under (h) he has acquired an alternative accommodation, under
(hh) he built residence and 10 years have expired after 1988 amending Act,
under (i) he has ceased to be in service of the la'l'idlord, under G) he caused
substantial damage to the property, under (k) he has used the premises contrary
to the condition of lease given by the Government or local bodies to the B
landlord, and under (1) where the landlord is required to carry out any
construction therein as requirement by the Government or local bodies. These
various sub-clauses under Section 14 is our considered opinion cannot be
construed to be a vested right of a landlord. In fact, Section 14 gives complete
protection to a tenant against his eviction but relaxes it on one of the grounds
referred to under its proviso. These sub-clauses are only part of this proviso C
of Section 14. The heading of this Section itself is;

"Protection of tenant against eviction". Sub-section (1) expressly
states;

"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other D
law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of
any premises shall be made by any court or controller in favour of
landlord against a.tenant."

This section thus gives complete protection to a tenant. The right which
is sought to be inferred as vested right is only under its proviso. Proviso E
cannot enlarge the main section. When main section is only a protective right
of a tenant, various sub-clauses of its proviso cannot be construed as it gives
vested right to a landlord. The right if at all could be said of the landlord it
flows only under the protective tenant's umbrella which cannot be enlarged
into a vested right of a landlord. Hence in our considered opinion by no
stretch of imagination it could be held that the landlord has any vested right F
by virtue of Section 14 of the Rent Act.

This leads us to the question, whether in a case where Section 6 of the
General Clauses Act is applicable, what effect it would have on a pending
proceeding, when repealing provisions come into operation. It is not in dispute G
in the present case that the Delhi Rent Act is the Central Act hence Section
6 of the General Clauses Act is applicable. We may also record here, in none
of the aforesaid decisions cited by the learned counsels application of Section
6 of the General Clauses Act was considered.

We may quote here Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897: H
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A "Section 6: Effect of repeal

Where this Act, or any (Central Act) or Regulation made after the
commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or
hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the
repeal shall not -
B
(a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the
repeal takes effect; or
(b affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or
anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or
C (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued
or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or
(d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect
of any offence committed agaiqst any enactment so repealed; or
(e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect
D of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture
or punishment as aforesaid, and any such investigation, legal
proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced,
and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed
as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed."
E The opening words of Section 6 specify the field over which it is
operative. It is operative over all the enactment under the General Clauses
Act, Central Act or Regulations made after the commencement of General
Clauses Act. It also clarifies in case of repeal of any provision under the
aforesaid Act or regulation, unless a different intention appears from such
F repeal, it would have no affect over the matters covered in its sub-clauses,
viz., (a) to (e). It clearly specifies that the repeal shall not revive anything not
in force or in existence or effect the previous operation of any enactment so
repealed or anything duly done or suffered or affect any right, privilege,
obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the repealed statute,
affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence
G committed under the repealed statute and also does not affect any investigation,
legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation,
liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid. Thus the Central
theme which spells out is that any investigation or legal proceeding pending
may be continued and enforced as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not
H come into force.
AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD. v. AMRIT LAL AND CO. [MISRA, J.) 211

As a general rule, in view of Section 6, the repeal of an statute, which A
is not retrospective in operation, does not prima facie affect the pending
proceedings which may be continued as if the repealed enactment were still
in force. In other words such repeal does not effect the pending cases which
would continue to be concluded as if the enactment has not been repealed.
In fact when a lis commences, all rights and obligations of the parties gets B
crystalised on that date. The mandate of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act
is simply to leave the pending proceedings unaffected which commenced
under the unrepeated provisions unless contrary intention is expressed. We
find Clause (c) of Section 6, refers the words "any right, privilege, obligation ....
acquired or accrued" under the repealed statute would not be affected by the
repealing statute. We may hasten to clarify here, mere existence of a right not C
being 'acquired' or 'accrued', on the date of the repeal would not get
protection of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act.

At the most such a provision can be said to be granting a privilege to
the landlord to seek intervention of the Controller for eviction of the tenant
under the Statute. Such a privilege is not a benefit vested in general but is D
a benefit granted and may be enforced by approaching the Controller in the
manner prescribed under the statute. On filing the petition for eviction of the
tenant the privilege accrued with the landlord is not affected by repeal of the
Act in view of section 6(c) and the pending proceeding is saved under section
6(e) of the Act.
E
This Court in Jsha Valimohamad and Anr. v. Haji Gu/am Mohamad &
Haji Dada Trust, (1974] 2 SCC 484 held, inter alia, that the right of a
landlord to recover possession on the ground that the tenant has sub-let the
premises is not an "accrued" right within the meaning of section 51 of the
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, (57 of 1947). F
But the landlord had the legal freedom as against the tenants to terminate the
tenancy or not. The tenants had no right or claim that the landlord should not
terminate the tenancy and the landlord is therefore the privilege of terminating
it on the ground that tenant has sµb-let the premises.

\ This privilege would survive the repeal. G
In para 16 of the judgment this Court summed· up the position as
follows:

"Under the Transfer of Property Act, mere sub-letting, by a tenant,
unless the contract of tenancy so provides, is no ground for terminating H
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A the tenancy. Under that Act a landlord cannot terminate a tenancy on
the ground that the tenant had sub-let the premises unless the contract
of tenancy prohibits him from doing so. The respondent-landlord
therefore could not have issued a notice under any of the provisions
of the Transfer of Property Act to determine the tenancy, as the
contract of tenancy did not prohibit sub-letting by the tenant. To put
B it, differently, under the Transfer of Property Act, it is only if the
contract of tenancy prohibits sub-letting by tenant that a landlord can
forfeit the tenancy on the ground that the tenant has sub-let the
premises and recover possession of the same after issuing a notice.
Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that a lease may
c be determined by forfeiture if the tenant commits breach of any of
the conditions of the contract of tenancy which entails a forfeiture of
the tenancy. If sub-letting is not prohibited under the contract of
tenancy, sub-letting would not be a breach of any condition in the
contract of tenancy which would enable the landlord to forfeit the
tenancy on that score by issuing a notice. If that be so, there was no
D question of the respondent landlord terminating the tenancy under the
Transfer of Property Act on the ground that the tenant had sub-let the
premises. It is only under Section 13(1)(e) of the Saurashtra Act that
-
a landlord was entitled to recover possession of the property on the
basis that the tenant had sub-let the premises; and, that is because,
E Section 15 of that Act unconditionally prohibited a tenant from sub-
letting. The Saurashtra Act nowhere insists that the landlord should
issue a notice and terminate the tenancy before instituting a suit for
recovery of possession under S 13(1) (e) on the ground that the
tenant had sub-let the premises. The position, therefore, was that the
landlord was entitled to recover possession of the premises under
F Section 13( I) of the Saurashtra Act on the ground that the tenant sub-
let the premises. It would follow that a right accrued to the landlord
to recover possession under Section 13( 1) of the Saurashtra Act when
the tenant sub-let the premises during the currency of that Act and the
right survived the repeal of that Act under proviso (2) to Section 51
G of the Bombay Act and, therefore, the suit for recovery of possession
of the premises under Section 13(1) read with clause (e) of the
Saurashtra Act after the repeal of that Act on the basis of the sub-
letting during the currency of the Saurashtra Act was maintainable. In
this view, we think that the judgment of the High Court must be
upheld and we do so."
H
AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD. v. AMRITLAL AND CO. [MISRA, J.l 213

In this connection the decision of this Court in MS. Shivananda v. A
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Ors., [1980] 1 SCC 149
may be seen. Para I 5 of the judgment which is relevant is quoted hereunder:

"The distinction between what is, and what is not a right preserved
by the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act is often one
of great fineness. What is unaffected by the repeal of a st11tute is a B
right acquired or accrued under it and not a mere hope or expectation
of, or liberty to apply for, acquiring a right. In Director of Public
Works v. ~o Po Sang Lord Morris speaking for the Privy Council,
observed:

It may be, therefore, that under some repealed enactment, a right has C
been given but that, in respect of it, some investigation or legal
proceeding is necessary. The right is then unaffected and preserved.
It will be preserved even if a process of quantification is necessary.
But there is a manifest distinction between an investigation in respect
of a right and an investigation which is to decide whether some right D
should be or should not be given. On a repeal, the former is preseri:ed
by the Interpretation Act. The latter is not.

(Emphasis supplied)

It must be mentioned that the object of Section 31(2)(i) is to preserve E
only the things done and action taken under the repealed Ordinance,
and not the rights and privileges acquired and accrued on the one
side, and the corresponding obligation or liability incurred on the
other ·side, so that if no right acquired under the repealed Ordinance
was preserved, there is no question of any liability being enforced."
F
In the case of Bansidhar and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors:
[I 989] 2 SCC 557 a Constitution Bench of this Court interpreting the
provisions of section 6 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, which is pari-
materia with section 6 of the Act, it was observed :

"This ta~es us to the next question whether in the present cases even G
if the provisions of Section 6 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act,
1955, are attracted, the present cases did not involve any rights
"accrued" or obligations incurred" so as to attract the old law to them
to support initiation or continuation of the proceedings against the
landholders after the repeal. It was contended that even ifthe provisions H
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

of the old Act were held to have been saved it could ·not be said that
·. A there was any right accrued in favour of the State or any liability
incurred by the landholders in the matter of determination' of the
'ceiling area' so as to attract to their cases the provision the old law.
The point emphasised by the learned counsel is that the excess land
would vest in the State only after the completion of the proceedings
B and upon the landholder signifying his choice as to the identity of the
land to be surrendered. Clauses (c) and (e) of Section 6 of the Rajasthan
General Clauses Act, 1955, provide, respectively, that the repeal of
an enactment shall not, unless a different intention appears, "affect
any right, privilege, obligation or liability, acquired, accrued or
c incurred under any enactment so repealed" or "affect any investigation,
legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege,
obligation, liability, fine, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as
aforesaid."

For purposes of these clauses the "right" must be "accrued" and
D not merely an inchoate one. The distinction between what is and what
is not a right preserved by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, it
is said, if often one of great fineness. What is unaffected by the
repeal is a right 'acquired' or 'accrued' under the repealed statute and
not "a mere hope or expectation" of acquiring a right or liberty to
apply for a right."
E
In Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City-/ v. Godavari Sagar
Mills ltd, [1967] I SCR this Court observed:

We proceed to consider the next contention of the appellant that
s.13 of the 1949 Act repealed the Ordinance completely and the
F
effect of this section was that the Ordinance was obliterated from the
Statute Book as if it never existed and, therefore, there was no bar in
the way of the Income-tax Officer to make the order on March 11,
1955.

G Mr. S.T. Desai is not right in his contention that the effect of s.13
of the 1949 Act is to obliterate the Ordinance completely from the
Statute Book. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act (Act I0 of 1897)
states as follows:

"6. Whereas this Act, or any Central Act or Regulation made after the
H commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or
AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD. v. AMRIT LAL AND CO. [MISRA, J.] 2 J5

hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the A
repeal shall not •

(a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the
repeal takes effect; or

(b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or B
anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or

(c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued
or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or

(d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect C
of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or

(e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of
any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture
or punishment as aforesaid;
D
and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be
instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or
punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation
had not been passed."

The reason for enacting s.6 of the General Clauses Act has been E
described by this Court in State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh as follows:

"Under the law of England, as it stood prior to the Interpretation
Act of 1889, the effect of repealing a statute was said to be to
obliterate it as completely from the records of Parliament as if it
had never been passed, except for the purpose of those actions, F
which were commenced, prosecuted and concluded while it was
an existing law. A repeal therefore without any saving clause
would destroy any proceeding whether not yet begun or whether
pending at the time of the enactment of the Repealing Act and
not already prosecuted to a final judgment so as to create a G
vested right. To obviate such results a practice came into existence
in England to insert a saving clause in the repealing statute with
a view to preserve rights and liabilities already accrued or incurred
under the repealed enactment. Later on, to dispense with the
necessity of having to insert a saving clause on each occasion,
section 38(2) was inserted in the Interpretation Act of 1889 which H
216 SUPREME COIIRT REPORTS (2001) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A provides that a repeal, unless the contrary intention appears, does
not affect the previous operation of the repealed enactment or
anything duly done or suffered under it and any investigation,
legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or
enforced in respect of any right, liability and penalty under the
repealed Act as if the Repealing Act had not been passed. Section
B 6 of the General Clauses Act, as is well known, is on the same
lines as Section 38(2) of the Interpretation Act of England."

Section 13 of the 1949 Act is almost identical in language with s.11
of Punjab Act XII of 1948 which was the subject-matter of
consideration in State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh and for the reason
c given by this Court in that ciise the provisions of s. 6 (c), (d) and (e)
of the General Clauses Act are applicable to this case since there is
no contrary intention appearing in the repealing statute."

In MS. Shivananda v. Karnataka State Road Transport Co~poration
D and Ors., [1980] I sec 149, this Court observed:
"If, however, the right created by the statute is ofan enduring character
and has vested in the person, that right cannot be taken away because
the statute by which it was created has expired. In order to ascertain
whether the rights and liabilities under the repealed Ordinance have
E been put an end to by the Act, the line of enquiry would be not
whether the new Act expressly keeps alive old rights and liabilities
under the repealed Ordinance but whether it manifests an intention to
destroy them. Another line of approach may be to see as to how far
the new Act is retrospective in operation."
F Thus we find Section 6 of the General Clauses Act covers wider field
and saves wide range of proceedings referred to in its various sub-clauses.
We find two sets of cases, one where Section 6 of the General Clauses Act
is applicable and other where it is not applicable.

G In cases where Section 6 is not applicable, the courts have to scrutinise
and find, whether a person under a repealed statute had any vested right. In
case he had, then pending proceedings would be saved. However, in cases
where Section 6 is applicable, it is not merely a vested right but all those
covered under various sub-clauses from (a) to (e) of Section 6. We have
already clarified right and privileges under it is limited to those which is
H 'acquired' and 'accrued'. In such cases pending proceedings is to be continued
AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD. v. AMRIT LAL AND CO. [MISRA, J.] 2 J7

as ifthe statute has not been repealed. A
In view of the aforesaid legal principle emerging, we come to the
conclusion since proceeding for the eviction of the tenant was pending when
repealing Act came into operation, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act
would be applicable in the present case. As it is Landlord's accrued right in
terms of Section 6. Sub-section ( c) of Section 6 refers to "any right" which B
may not be limited as a vested right but is limited to be an accrued right. The.
words 'any right accrued' in Section 6 (c) is wide enough to include landlord's
right to evict a tenant in case proceeding was pending when repeal came in.
Thus a pending proceeding before the Rent Controller for the eviction of a
tenant on the date when the repealing Act came into force would not be C
affected by the repealing statute and will be continued and concluded in
accordance with the law as existed under the repealed statute.

In view of the aforesaid findings we conclude, by recording our findings
on the question posed earlier by holding:
D
(I) A landlord or tenant are relegated to seek their rights and remedies
under the common law once the protection given to a tenant under the Rent
Act is withdrawn, except in cases where Section 6 of the General Clauses
Act, 1897 is applicable;

(2) A ground of eviction based on illegal subletting under proviso (b) E
to Section 14 of the Rent Act would not constitute to be a vested right of a
landlord, but it would be a right and privilege accrued within the meaning of
Section 6 (c) of the General Clauses Act in a matter if proceeding for eviction
is pending;

(3) When tenant has no vested right under a Rent Act having only
F
protective right, withdrawal of such protection would not confer on a landlord
a vested right to evict a tenant under Rent Act except where sub-clause (c)
of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act is applicable.

In view of these findings we hold landlord has a right under the repealed G
Rent Act by virtue of Section 6 (c) of the General Clauses Act, which would
save the pending proceedings before the Rent Controller, which may continue
to be proceeded with as if repealed Act is still in force.

In view of our aforesaid findings, since Rent Controller has the
jurisdiction over the subject-matter, it will not be right for the landlord to H
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A continue with two parallel proceedings; one under the General Law and other
before the Rent Controller. Hence we further order that the respondent-landlord
to withdraw one of the two proceedings within a period of 6 weeks from
today.

For the aforesaid reasons, the present appeals fail and are dismissed.
B Costs on the parties.
T.N.A. Appeals dismissed.

',
i'
l