Case Note:
A. - U.P. Regularisation of Remissions Act, 1938--Not ultra vires of U.P. Legislature--It is covered by Item No. 21, List II of Seventh Schedule to Government of India Act.
[Per Gwyer C.J.]--The general descriptive words in item No 21 include "the collection of rents"; and if a Provincial Legislature can legislate with respect to the collection of rents, it must also have power to legislate with respect to any limitation on the power of a landlord to collect rents, that is to say, with respect to the remission of rents as well as to their collection. Legislation with respect to the remission of rents is legislation with respect to a matter included in item No. 21. The U.P. Regularisation of Remissions Act, 1938, is an Act with respect to the remission of rent and it was within the competence of the U.P. Legislature to enact it.
[Per Varadachariar J.]--The U.P. Regularisation of Remissions Act, 1938, intended to deal and does deal with the subject of remission of rent made under orders of the Provincial Government, and was intra vires the U.P. Legislature.
[Per Sulaiman J.].--When the question is whether any impugned Act is within any of the three Lists, or in none at all, it is the duty of Courts to consider the Act as a whole, and decide whether in pith and substance the Act is with respect to particular categories or not. This can be inferred only from the design and purport of the Act as disclosed by its language and the effect which it would have in its actual operation. In pith and substance the U.P. Regularisation of Remissions Act is an Act not only with respect to "the relation of landlord and tenant" or the "collection of rents", but is also with respect to conferring on the Provincial Government very extensive powers of interference with the legal rights of landholders in their lands.
B. - U.P. Regularisation of Remissions Act, 1938--Whether applied to pending action.
[Per Sulaiman J.]--The U.P. Regularisation of Remissions Act, 1938, did not apply to pending actions.
(Quaere)--[Per Varadachariar J.].--Whether the U.P. Regularisation of Remissions Act applied to pending actions?
C. - Interpretation of Statutes--New Statute having retrospective effect--Whether applicable to pending actions--Guiding principle.
[Per Sulaiman J.]--Undoubtedly, an Act may in its operation be retrospective, and yet the extent of its retrospective character need not extend so far as to affect pending suits. Courts have undoubtedly leaned very strongly against applying a new Act to a pending action, when the language of the statute does not compel them to do so. It is a well recognised rule that statutes should, as far as possible be so interpreted, as not to affect vested rights adversely, particularly when they are being litigated When a statute deprives a person of his right to sue or affects the power or jurisdiction of a Court in enforcing the law as it stands, its retrospective character must be clearly expressed. Ambiguities in it should not be removed by Courts, nor gaps filled up in order to widen its applicability. It is a well established principle that such statutes must be construed strictly, and not given a liberal interpretation.
[Per Varadachariar J.]--Where it is intended to make a new law applicable even to pending actions, it is common to find the legislature using language expressly referring to pending actions. But it is not necessary that the intention of the Legislature should always be expressed in that particular form.
JUDGMENT
Gwyer, C.J.
1. In this case the principal question to be decided is whether the Regularization of Remissions Act, 1938 (14 of 1938), an Act of the Legislature of the United Provinces, was within the competence of the Legislature which enacted ........