"New Law Won't Affect Existing Rights Unless Clearly Stated: Supreme Court"

The Supreme Court ruled that the rights acquired under an old law cannot be taken away by a new law unless the new law specifically states that it applies retroactively. This decision was made by a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale while addressing a tenancy dispute. In this case, the tenants claimed that their rights under the Old Tenancy Act (West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956) should still apply, even though a New Tenancy Act (West Bengal Tenancy Premises Act, 1997) had come into effect. The Old Act allowed tenancy to be passed to the tenant's legal heirs indefinitely, while the New Act limited this inheritance to just five years. The conflict arose from the phrase in the 1997 Act: "for a period not exceeding five years from the date of death of such tenant or from the date of coming into force of this Act, whichever is later." The new law limited tenancy rights inherited after a tenant's death to five years, even if the main tenant died under the Old Tenancy Act. The tenants argued that since their father died in 1970, their rights should be governed by the Old Act. The landlord, however, claimed that the new law limited their rights to five years from 2001 to 2006, making their tenancy expire, and sought their eviction. The Supreme Court sided with the tenants, stating that a new law does not automatically cancel rights under a repealed law unless this is explicitly mentioned. The court criticized the literal interpretation of the new law that led to an unreasonable outcome, making the tenants' rights under the Old Act meaningless. The court referred to a previous judgment which noted that interpreting the phrase in the New Act literally would result in all tenancies ending on the same day, which would be absurd. The Supreme Court agreed with this view, emphasizing that if a law is to have retroactive effect, this must be clearly stated in the law itself. In conclusion, the court ruled that the tenants inherited their rights in 1970 under the Old Tenancy Act, and their tenancy did not expire in 2006 with the New Act because there was no clear intention for the New Act to apply retroactively. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. Appearance Ms. Rashi Bansal argued for the appellants-tenant Mr. Sabyasachi Chowdhary argued for the respondent-landlord Case: RAJESH MITRA @RAJESH KUMAR MITRA & ANR. VERSUS KARNANI PROPERTIES LTD., CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3593-3594 OF 2024 www.legalmeet.in