M. S. LIBERHAN, C. J.

( 1 ) BRIEFLY undisputed sequence of events to answer the question referred to Full Bench are: the construction of the demised premises occupied by the appellant (hereinafter referred as tenant ) would be deemed to be complete on 1-1-1972 as defined under the Andhra Pradesh buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), as the tenant occupied the same on this date. Suit for possession and mesne profits was instituted on 30-11-1981 by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as landlord (sic. landlady) ). The Supreme court in Motor General Traders vs. State of a. P. vide its order dated 26-10-1983 declared Section 32 (b) of the Act granting exemption to the newly constructed buildings from the applicability of the Act as ultra vires.

( 2 ) THE trial Court dismissed the suit, holding, it not maintainable, in view of section 32 (b) of the Act, providing for exemption from the applicability of the Act to the newly constructed buildings, having been struck down by the Supreme Court.

( 3 ) ON appeal, learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the suit was within ten years i. e. , within the period of exemption from the applicability of the Act. Suit was decreed for possession and means profits. Thus the appeal was allowed.

( 4 ) TENANT impugned the judgment of the learned single Judge in letters patent appeal, inter alia on the ground that the words "with effect on and from 26th october 1983" in the notification means the building was not exempt from the operation of the Act on the date of its completion i. e. , 1-1-1972. The period of exemption counted either retrospectively or prospectively, the period of ten years is to be counted from 26th October, 1983. It was averred that prior to 26th October, 1983 the act. was applicable to all buildings in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court declaring Section 32 (b) ultra vires.

( 5 ) LANDLORD contended that the object behind G. O. was only to cover up the gap, the period for exemption between the date of the Supreme Court judgment and the date of issuance of the G. O. Ms. No. 636, dated 26th October, 1983 and it cannot be the cut-off date. Period of ten years need not precede that date. The learned single Judge observed "the date of issuance of g. O. Ms. No. 636 dated 26th October, 1983 or the date of its publication in A. P. Gazette on 2-1-1984 are of absolutely no relevance for the purpose of computing ten years period specified in the G. O. What is relevant is only the age of the building and its rent as on the date of institution of the suit. In the present case, the suit was instituted on 30-11-1981. It is already held that the relevant date for the purpose of computing ten years is 1-1-1972 i. e. , the date of occupation of the mulgies by the tenant- d. W. 1. There should therefore be no hesitation to conclude that the suit for eviction of four mulgies was filed within ten years from the date on which their construction was completed".

( 6 ) THE principle that exemption applied to all buildings for a period of ten years from the date of the construction whether the construction was before or after g. O. Ms. No. 636 was accepted. Reference was made to Kerala Transport Co. vs. Atul kumar Agarwal. In R. K. Gupta vs. Sirtajkaran Court dissented from in so far as it laid down the principle that no decree can be passed against the tenant either by the original or appellate Court when once the ten years period expired during pendency of the suit, appeal, or revision. In m. V. Subbarao vs. N. Koteswara Rao it was observed that the contention that suit filed after the effective date of exemption would only be saved was rejected. The Counsel assailed the correctness of the principle laid down in the above-referred decisions of division Bench. It was noticed though the question of the applicability of exemption was considered in the aforementioned cases, the question, whether ten-year period should be calculated

Click Here to Read the rest of this document