top of page
Judge Gavel
Search
Writer's pictureLegal Soch Foundation
2 min read

New Act Cannot Extinguish Rights from Repealed Law Without Express Retrospective Provision: SC

The Supreme Court of India ruled that rights accrued under a repealed law cannot be extinguished by a new law unless the new statute expressly provides for retrospective effect. The ruling came in a tenancy dispute case, Rajesh Mitra @ Rajesh Kumar Mitra & Anr. vs. Karnani Properties Ltd., where the bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale held that the New Tenancy Act, West Bengal Tenancy Premises Act, 1997, could not retrospectively override the tenancy rights accrued under the previous law, the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.


The issue arose when the appellants/tenants argued that their rights, inherited from their father who passed away in 1970 during the operation of the Old Tenancy Act, should be governed by the provisions of the 1956 Act. This law allowed the tenancy to devolve indefinitely on legal heirs who resided with the deceased tenant. However, the New Tenancy Act of 1997 restricted such inheritance to a period of five years from either the tenant's death or the enactment of the new law, whichever was later.


The respondent/landlord contended that the appellants could only claim tenancy rights until 2006, five years from the 2001 enforcement of the new law, and sought their eviction. They argued that the new Act implicitly gave retrospective effect to limit tenancy rights, extinguishing any rights under the Old Tenancy Act beyond 2006.


The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that a new law cannot automatically have retrospective effect unless it is explicitly stated within the statute. Since the 1997 Act did not clearly specify retrospective application, the rights accrued under the Old Tenancy Act remained valid. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, preserving the tenants' inherited rights under the 1956 Act.


The appellants were represented by Advocate Rashi Bansal, while the respondent was represented by Advocate Sabyasachi Chowdhary.


Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 790.






Recent Posts

See All
bottom of page