The appellant and respondent were the tenant and land-lord of certain agricultural lands to which the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Ac~ 1953, applied. The appellant tried to avoid payment of rent for each year of c the lease period (1951-1955), under one pretext or the other, and for every year recoveries of rent were only made through the court. After the period of lease expired, the appellant continued to h<>ld over without paying rent. So the respondent filed two applications to the appropriate authorities, one for arrears <>f rent under s. 14A(ii) and the other for eviction under S, 14A(i). on the ground, inter alia, specified in s. 9( 1) (ii) that the a;>pellant had failed to pay the rent regularly, with<>ut sufficient cause. On the application for rent, the appellant was asked to pay the D arrears which he did within the time fixed. The application for eviction was dismissed, but on appeal by the respondent, the appellant was ordered to be evicted. The appellant's further appeal application for revision and petition to the l-ligh Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution were >tll dismissed. In the appeal to the Supreme Court it was contended that, (i) s. 9( I) (ii) applies only prospectively and therefore the conduct of the tenant, prior 10 the enactIT'.ent of ·s. 14/\ in 1955, could not be taken into account for E Jeterrnini!'lg that there was not sufficient c::use for non-payment, and (ii) as the appllant had paid the arre:1rs w·ithin the time fL"{ed he could not be evicted. HELD : Though the appellant could not he evicted under s. 14A(ii I his case wiu "vercd liy s. J 4A(i) and his eviction could be ordered because, the irrcu!arity in payment was patent and there was no sufficient cause. 142 A] F The necessary condition for the application of s. 9( I) (ii) may comn1ence even . before the Act came into force and past conduct which is as • relevant for the clause as conduct after the coming into force of the Act, cannot he overlooked. A statute is not applied retrospectively merely because a part of the requisites for its action is drawn from a mo~enl prior to its passing. [41 A-C] The scheme of the Act shows that els. (i) and (ii) of s. 14A are entirely different and that there is no inconsistency between them. Clause G (ii) deals with eviction as punishment for non-compliance with an order to deposit arrears of rent within the time fixed for payment. whereas cl. (i) deals with eviction for any of the reasons given in s. 9(1), one of which is nonwpayment of rent regularly without sufficient cause, under 1. 9(1) (ii) [41 D-El CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 833 of 1962. H Appeal by special leave from the order, dated March 9, 1961 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ No. 291 of 1961..
