JUDGMENT

SAWANT, J.:—The short question which falls for consideration in the present appeal is whether on the coming into operation of the notification on 26th October, 1983 issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 26, of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), the three applications made by the tenant for relief under the Act survive or not.

The relevant facts are that the suit premises were governed by the Act till 29th December, 1983. On 4th February, 1983 and 13th February, 1983, the respondent tenant filed variously three applications, viz., (i) R. C. 15/83 for direction to permit him to deposit rent in the Court (ii) R. C. 16/83 for fixation of fair rent and (iii) R. C. 17/83 to prevent inconvenience. The State Government issued notification dated 29th December, 1983 exempting w.e.f. 26th October, 1983 from all the provisions of the Act, among others, buildings whose monthly rent exceeded Rs. 1,000/-. The definition of the building under the Act includes any tenanted premises and hence the suit premises stood exempted from the operation of the Act w.e.f. 26th October, 1983 since on the said date the monthly rent payable in respect of the premises was Rs. 1,300/-.

The Rent Controller dismissed the tenants applications by his order of 6th April, 1985 on the ground that the rent of the premises being in excess of Rs. 1,000/- he had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the applications after 26th October, 1983. Against the said decision, the tenant preferred three appeals in the three applications to the Subordinate Judge. The appeals were dismissed upholding the decision of the Rent Controller. Against the decision in appeal, the tenant preferred three revision petitions, viz., C. R. P. Nos. 624,831 and 1043/91 in the High Court and the High Court by the impugned decision allowed the said petitions holding that the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the applications since the notification in question did not apply to the pending proceedings.

2. It appears that while the tenants appeals were pending before the Subordinate Judge, he had preferred a writ petition being W. P. No. 8081/86 in the High Court challenging the validity of clause (b) of the said notification which states that the buildings fetching monthly rent exceeding Rs. 1,000/- stood exempted from the provisions of the Act. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition upholding the validity of the said provisions. The tenant preferred a writ appeal which also met the same fate. Against the decision in the writ appeal, the tenant preferred special leave petition in this Court which was dismissed summarily at the admission stage without a speaking order.

Shri Sitaramiah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-landlord contended that on the coming into operation of the said notification from the 26th October, 1983, the protection given to the tenant stood withdrawn and, therefore, whatever rights he had under the provisions of the Act, stood extinguished on and from the said date. As against this, it was contended by Shri Subba Rao for the tenant that the tenant and acquired vested rights under the Act and they were alive when the applications were made had the could not be divested of the same by he Notification which came into operation from a subsequent date, as held by the Division Bench of the High Court.

In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the landlord relied upon, among others, the following decisions of this Court. The first of the decision is D. C. Bhatia v. Union of India (1995) 1 SCC 104, where a three Judge Bench of this Court disposed of serveral appeals arising out of an amendment of the Delhi Rent Control Act whereby Section 3(c), was introduced in the said Act withdrawing the protection of that Act to such premises whose rent was Rs. 3,500/- per month or Rs. 42,0