Judgment 1. THIS appeal is at the instance of the owner of a house against a judgment and decree passed by an Arbitrator at Birbhum by which the reference was rejected. The appellant is the owner of a house being holding No. 390 of Anandapur Ward within Suri Municipality. By carder dated 11th December, 1957, the State requisitioned this house and possession was taken on the 10th of January, 1958. The amount of compensation could not be fixed by agreement and so the State government appointed Mr. D. P. De, additional District Judge at Birbhum as arbitrator. The requisition was made under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary provisions) Act, 1947 (West Bengal Act v of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the Act and the Arbitrator was also appointed under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 11 of the aforesaid Act. The State offered a sum of Rs. 68. 73 as the fair compensation per month and the owner refused to accept it. The learned arbitrator was of the opinion that this rate would be the fair compensation and declined to interfere. Hence this appeal. 2. THERE was a dispute between the parties as to whether this particular portion of the ground floor which has been requisitioned was tenanted at the time of the requisition or not. According to the owner only three rooms now requisitioned were let out at a rental of Rs. 68. 73. According to the State the entire portion which has now been requisitioned was let out at a rental of Rs.68.73. We have gone through the evidence in this case and we are of opinion that the entire ground floor as now requisitioned was let out at a rental of Rs. 68. 73. We are not impressed by the evidence of P. W. 1 in this connection who could not produce the rent counterfoils to show that only three rooms were let out at a rental of rs. 68. 73. Reference may be made in this connection to exhibit 5 which will bear out also the case of the State. We, therefore, hold that immediately before the requisition this portion had been let out at a rental of Rs. 68. 73. 68. 73. Reference may be made in this connection to exhibit 5 which will bear out also the case of the State. We, therefore, hold that immediately before the requisition this portion had been let out at a rental of Rs. 68. 73. The learned Arbitrator seems to have been of the opinion that as this house bore this rental at the time of requisition he cannot go beyond that of look into the rents of similar houses ill the locality and must confine himself to this rent specially as there was no evidence to show that this rent was unduly low. We think that the learned arbitrator was in error in this view. Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Act runs as follows: "the arbitrator in making his award, shall have regard to the matters referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of section 12". Section 12 runs as follows : "in determining the amount of compensation which may be fixed by agreement under clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 11, the Collector shall take into consideration (a) the rent payable in respect of the premises including, where the premises are requisitioned with any furniture therein, the charges for the use of such furniture"; We need not quote clauses (b) and (c) of section 12 as these are not relevant. 3. MR. Hari Prasanna Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the appellant, contends that the term "payable" would indicate that where rent was being paid for the house, that should not be taken into account, but only a notional rent should be looked into where the house is not let out. On this basis Mr. Mukherjee contends that even (if we hold that the entire portion requisition ed was let out for this sum of Rs.68.73, still clause (a) of section 12 will not apply with regard to this rent on the aforesaid basis. We are not in a position to accept this interpretation of Mr. Mukherjee's. The term "payable" means according to Concise Oxford dictionary, 5th Edition "that must be paid, due; that may be paid profitable". It is clear from this definition that rent which is borne by a particular house is also rent which is "payable". We are not in a position to accept this interpretation of Mr. Mukherjee's. The term "payable" means according to Concise Oxford dictionary, 5th Edition "that must be paid, due; that may be paid profitable". It is clear from this definition that rent which is borne by a particular house is also rent which is "payable". In this view of the matter, the rent which this premises bore at the date of the requisition cannot be ruled out, but at the same time as sections 11 and 12 stand, the collector shall have to take into consideration this rent but the discretion of the Arbitrator in this respect is not fettered. He shall have regard to only this clause (a), but that does not mean that he cannot fix the compensation at a rate higher than that which the premises bore at the time of the requisition, Mr. Salil Kumar Hazra, learnerd Counsel appearing on behalf of the State with his usual fairness has conceded that this should be the interpretation of clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 11 and in this view of the matter we must hold that the Arbitrator is not bound to fix the compensation at the rate at which this house bore at the time of the requisition, but at the same time he shall have regard to the same and can look into other similar premises in the neighbourhood. 4. ON behalf of the appellant reliance is placed on exhibit 6. It shows that a house known as Nirmal Niketan which, we find from the evidence, to be in the same neighbourhood as the house in the instant case, was also required for accommodation for certain office of the State, and the State offered monthly rent at the rate of 2 as. 6 p, per sq. ft. or, in other words, 16 p. at the present rate per sq. ft. It is no doubt a fact that the house in the instant case is older than the Nirmal niketan, but at the same time, the rate which was offered by the State also in the year 1958, the date when the possession of the instant house was taken, cannot be ruled out altogether. For another reason, we do not think that the compensation should be pegged at the rate at which the house was lei, out at the time of requisition. For another reason, we do not think that the compensation should be pegged at the rate at which the house was lei, out at the time of requisition. The rent which was being paid for that house at that time was fixed by agreement; and the owner had the right to eject the tenant. But now the house is being requisitioned and the owner's hands are being tied and so the rent of Rs. 68.73 the owner should not be compelled to accept. Mr. Hazra contends that, in any view of the matter, the compensation which we may fix cannot exceed by more than 10 per cent the rent which was being paid for this house. Mr. Hazra relies on clause (i) of provis 2 to clause (e) of sub-section 1 of section 11. It runs as follows : "in other cases, the amount payable shall not exceed (i) where the premises were let out on rent for a continuous period of not less than six months immediately before being requisitioned, suck rent by more than ten per cent." This proviso was added in 1963 by section 5 of the West Bengal Premises requisition and Control (Temparary)Provisions Second Amendment Act, 1963 (West Bengal Act XXIX of 1963), or, in other words during the pendency of the appeal in this Court. Mr. Hazra submits that as this proviso has been added and stares us in the face before we dispose of the case, we are bound to give effect to it. We are, however, unable to accept this contention of Mr. Hazra. It is an agreed principle of law that the rights and liabilities of the party would be governed by the law as it stood when the proceedings started, or the cause of action arose, and no amendment of the law car affect such rights and liabilities until and unless it provides specifically or by necessary intendment (1) United Provinces v. Mt. Atiqa Begum and others, (A. I. R. 1941 F. C. 16 (2) Rafiquennessa v. Lal Bahadur A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1511. As a matter of fact we have also followed these principles in F.A. 71 of 1961 disposed of by us on the 15th July last. Mr. Atiqa Begum and others, (A. I. R. 1941 F. C. 16 (2) Rafiquennessa v. Lal Bahadur A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1511. As a matter of fact we have also followed these principles in F.A. 71 of 1961 disposed of by us on the 15th July last. Mr. Hazra does not dispute this proposition but further submits that by necessary intendment, as this clause is there in the statute book before we dispose of this appeal, it has been made retrospective in operation. We cannot accept this proposition. If it was to be made retrospective, the legislature would have done so, and by necessary implication it does not follow that it would be an exception to the general principles referred to above. 5. TAKING into consideration all these facts and circumstances we are of opinion that Rs. 90/- per mensem should be the adequate monthly compensation for the premises requisitioned. 6. THE appeal is accordingly allowed in part and the judgment and the decree passed by the learned Arbitrator is set aside and the monthly compensation is fixed at Rs. 90/- per mensem. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal. Salil Kumar Datta, J. : I agree with the judgment just delivered by my Lord and further agree that the appeal should be allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated in the said judgment. I would, however, like to add a few words on the submissions made by Mr. Hazra on points of law. 7. IT will appear from section 12 of the Act that the Collector in determining the amount of compensation which may be fixed by an agreement shall take into consideration the rant payable in respect of the requisitioned premises. In section 11, however, we find in clause (e) of sub-section 1 thereof that in determining the amount of compensation the Arbitrator shall have regard to the matters referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of section 12. In section 11, however, we find in clause (e) of sub-section 1 thereof that in determining the amount of compensation the Arbitrator shall have regard to the matters referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of section 12. On an interpretation of this section it appears to me that while the Collector in determining the compensation is bound to take into consideration the rent payable of the requisitioned premises, a distinction has been made in regard to the Arbitrator who is merely required to have regard to matters of sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c)of section 12, or, in other words, the arbitrator is not circumscribed by the rent payable in respect of the requisitioned premises. In determining the compensation he is required to have regard to the rent which is payable in respect of the requisitioned premises. This is a distinction which should not be lost sight of in determining the compensation to be fixed by the Arbitrator under the provisions of this act. In this instant case however, we find that the learned Arbitrator thought himself bound by the rent which was being paid of the requisitioned premises which in the view I have taken is erroneous and is not warranted by the statute. 8. IT has not been and cannot be disputed that the right to receive compensation as also the adequate quantum thereof are substantive rights and it is also an established principle of law that the parties would be governed in respect of their substantive rights by the law as it existed at the time the cause of action arose. Any amendment of any provision of a statute taking away such substantive rights may however be done either by express provision in the amending Act or by necessary implication and clear intendment. These principles have been reiterated in (1) United Provinces v. Mt. Atiqa Begum and others A. I. R. 1941 S. C. 16 as also in (2) Rafiquennesa v. Lal Bahadur A. I. R. 1964 S. C. 1511. In the light of the above decisions we are to consider the amendments which has been made by the West Bengal Premises requisition and Control (Temporary provisions) (Second Amendment) Act, 1963 (West Bengal Act XXIX of 1963)in the principal Act. In the light of the above decisions we are to consider the amendments which has been made by the West Bengal Premises requisition and Control (Temporary provisions) (Second Amendment) Act, 1963 (West Bengal Act XXIX of 1963)in the principal Act. We find that in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 11 of the West Bengal Requisition and control (Temporary) Provisions Act, 1947, a proviso was added by the said amending Act as proviso 2 stating that the amount of compensation payable shall not exceed where the premises were let out on rent for a continuous period of not less than six months immediately before the requisition, at a rate more than 10 per cent of such rent. Mr. Hazra on the basis of this clause wanted to argue that in any event the appellant will not be entitled to compensation at more than 10 per cent of the contractual rent of the premises which -was prevailing at the time of its requisition and he further argued that this provision of the Act would be applicable in all cases where the clause (1) of the proviso did not apply. We may mention here that clause (1)of the proviso would apply when the premises were constructed after the commencement of the West Bengal Act xxix of 1963 as stated above and clause (2) applies to all other cases. I have already stated that it is not possible to accept such contentions. The parties will be governed by the law as it stood at the time of requisition and unless there is any express provision or clear intendment taking away any such right, it cannot be deemed to have been taken away. In the amending Act there is no express provision making the proviso effective with retrospective effect and I am not in a position also to hold that such was the clear intendment of the provision of the Act. That being the position, I am also of the view that in view of the amendment it cannot be said that the compensation payable to the claimant in this case shall not exceed 10 per cent of the contractual rent.