C. V. N. SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) THESE two Second Appeals, one filed by the defendant and the other filed by the plaintiff, arise out of the suit filed by the landlord against the tenant for ejectment and for arrears of rent and also for damages for use and occupation.

( 2 ) THE tenancy is not in dispute. It is an oral tenancy from month to month. The agreed rent was Rs. 450/- per month. The landlord terminated the tenancy by a quit notice dated 22-7-1976 terminating the tenancy by the end of August, 1976. He claimed besides the relief of possession, arrears of rent for two months at the agreed rate of Rs. 450/- per month and damages at the rate of Rs. 900/- per month from 1-9-1976. There was an ex parte decree passed in the suit on 18-7-1979. In execution of the decree, the landlord obtained delivery of possession of the premises on 24-10-1981. Subsequently at the instance of the tenant the decree in so far as it related to the grant of damages only was set aside by an order of this Court passed in Civil Revision petition with a direction to the trial Court to frame an additional issue as to whether the suit was not maintainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Motor general Traders vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and to dispose of the same in accordance with law. The decree for eviction was, however, not disturbed and the same has become final.

( 3 ) AFTER remand the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the Rent control Act applies to the building and the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On appeal filed by the landlord, the appellate Court also held that the provisions of the Rent Control Act apply to the building since it does not fall under the exemption granted in G. O. Ms. No. 636, general Administration (Accom.) department dated 20-12-1983 exempting buildings for a period of 10 years after construction from the provisions of the Rent control Act. Accordingly, the appellate court granted a decree for arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month till the date decree and for damages at the rate of rs. 900/- per month from the date of decree till date of delivery of possession. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant has filed s. A. No. 561of 1989 whereas the landlord filed S. A. No. 17 of 1990 contending that the rent Control Act has no application to the case and that he is entitled for damages at the rate of Rs. 900/- per month from the date of termination of the tenancy till the date of decree also.

( 4 ) INDISPUTABLY the landlord will not be entitled for mesne profits or damages for use and occupation if the provisions of the rent Control Act apply to the building. In such case, the landlord will be entitled only to the agreed rent. It is not in dispute that the building in question was constructed in the year 1968. The suit was filed on 14-9-1976. Thus the suit was filed within the exemption period of 10 years as per g. O. Ms No. 636, General Administration (Accom.) Department, dated 20-12-1983. In motor General Traders vs. State of Andhra pradesh (supra) the Supreme Court while declaring clause (b) of Section 32 of the said act was unconstitutional, however, made it clear that this declaration would not affect the validity of any proceedings in which the decree for eviction passed by a civil Court has become final and the landlord has already taken the possession of the building in question pursuant thereto. In Athmaram vs. Eswar Singh, the Supreme Court relying on the well established principle that the rights of the parties Crystalise on the date of the institution of the suit held, if the suit or proceeding is instituted within the stipulated period of 10 years, the exemption will continue to be available until the suit is disposed of and that the adjudication must be in accordance with the law as on the date of institution of the suit. Both the Courts below are, therefore, clearly in error in holding that the provisions of the Rent control Act apply to the building in question. The lower

Click Here to Read the rest of this document