( 1 ) THE question that is involved in this Second Appeal is whether the Civil court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is filed by the 4th defendant in O. S, No. 75 of 1982 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit O. S. No. 11/77 in the Court of the District Munsiff, Kothagudem against the 1st defendant for eviction from the suit premises and for arrears of rent. Subsequently, the 2nd defendant was impleaded as a party. As the 1st defendant died during the pendency of the suit, his legal representatives were added as defendants 3 to 8. The suit was transferred to the Court of the subordinate Judge, Kothagudem and is numbered as O. S. No. 75/82.

( 3 ) THE suit premises consists of a shop. One of the contentions raised by the defendants is that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction because it is governed by the Rent Control Act. The trial court accepted the contention of the defendants and held that the building is constructed in the year 1965 and the period of 10 years granted by the Government was over even by the date of filing of the suit. The suit house is not exempted from the Rent Control Act and as such, the Civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff preferred an appeal against the said judgment in A. S. No. 19/86 in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Khammam. The learned additional District Judge, held that no notification extending the Rent Control act to the Kothagudem which is a notified area was given and therefore, the provisions of the Rent Control Act are not applicable in respect of the premises in question and so the suit can be maintained in a Civil Court. He has negatived the other contention of the defendants that the notice under Section 106 of T. P. Act is not proper and ordered eviction of defendants within 3 months and also directed them to pay an amount of Rs. 419-24 ps. towards the arrears of rent from 1-1-1976 to 31-12-1976. The 4th respondent preferred the second appeal against the said judgment.

( 5 ) THE plaintiffs i. e. , respondents 1 and 2 have also filed cross-objections aggrieved by the judgment of the lower appellate court granting only Rs. 419- 24 ps. towards arrears of rent.

( 6 ) THE main question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Rent Control Act is applicable to the building in question.

( 7 ) THE trial court went on the basis that the period of 10 years of exemption granted by the Government under Section 26 of the Act has expired by the time of the filing of the suit. The lower appellate court took the view that there is no notification extending the Rent Control Act to Kothagudem notified area, in kamalakar Rao as. Abida Begum, it was held that Kothagudem area, prior to the rent Control Act, 1960, was governed by the provisions of Hyderabad Act, 20 of 1954. By notification No. 15, dated 3-6-1955, the area included within the limits of Kothagudem was notified under Hyderabad Act 20 of 1954. The Rent control Act continues to apply to that part of Kothagudem which is covered by the notification referred to above. Therefore, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents 1 and 2 had taken a different contention that under section 32 (b) of the Rent Control Act, buildings constructed on or after 26th august, 1957 are exempted from the operation of the said Act and since the building in this case was constructed in the year 1965, it was not covered by the rent Control Act by the time the suit was filed in the District Munsiff s Court, kothagudem in the year 1977 and therefore, the suit is maintainable in the Civil court.

( 8 ) THE Supreme Court had struck down Section 32 (b) of the Rent Control Act as unconstitutional in the decision reported in Motor General Traders vs. State of a. P. In the. decision reported in S. A. Hakim Saheb vs. P. V. K. Setty, a learned single Judge of this Court, Lakshman Rao ]. , held that "in the instant cas