BAI SAKARBAI DEVRAJ Vs. IBRAHIM ABDUL GANIBHAI PANKHIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Amidst rival contentions and elaborate submissions, we find ourselves in a field which appears to be circumscribed. We perceive, we are in the arena of Interpretation of Statutes, and the question referred to us seems to have been decided by the Apex Court. The controversy is concluded, leaving nothing which can be recognised as Res Integra. The question to be answered by us is :

(2.) The compactus of the Supreme Court Pronouncements, to which we propose to advert in course of sequence, will guide us to opine that the provisions contained in the Amending Act, including the deletion or omission of word "regularly" are only prospective and not retrospective or retroactive in operation.

(3.) A brief note of the Legislative History of the provisions contained under Sec. 12 of the Bombay Rents Act, 1947 would serve a useful purpose. Section 12 of the Bombay Rents Act, 1947 prior to its amendment by Bombay Act No. 61 of 1953 did not contain the two sub-clauses in sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 12. Section 12(3) as it then stood would read as follows :