The rights of the parties in a suit for eviction filed during the period of exemption under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, will be governed by the rights available to them on the date of the institution of the suit, and the provisions of Section 10 of the Act will not be applicable to such suits.

( 1 ) CCC A No 111 of 198]:- This is a defendant s appeal against the Judgment and Decree of the First Additional judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dated 27-6-1981 in O S No 1 of 1977.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF is the owner of the premises bearing No 10-1-175/1, Masab tank, Hyderabad. He let out the same to the defendant in 1977 under an oral agreement on a monthly rent of Rs. 900/ -. On the allegations that the defendant was not paying rents regularly and he became due in a sum of Rs. 10,800/- and he let out the premises without permission, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy by notice dated 4-10-1975 and thereafter filed the suit, out of which this appeal arises for recovery of possession and mesne profrts.

( 3 ) THE defendant resisted the suit contending inter alia that he is not the tenant that he is one of the Directors of m/s. Maya Strap Private Limited and the suit premises was given on rent to the said company. He also took the plea that the rents were in fact, paid and there were no arrears. He admitted about receiving the notice, but took the stand that since he is not the tenant, he has nothing to do with the notice, the tenancy of the Company had not been terminated and the same is subsisting and neither he nor the company is in unlawful possession.

( 4 ) ON these pleadings, the trial court framed as many as 9 issues, out of which the following are relevant:1. Whether there is no valid notice as contemplated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act? (Issue No 4 ). 2. Whether the tenancy is not determined by the plaintiff at all? (Issue no 6 ).

( 5 ) BOTH sides adduced oral and documentary evidence. The Court found on all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and decreed the suit for possession and mesne profits by judgment and decree dated 27-6-1981.

( 6 ) AGGRIEVED thereby, the defendant preferred the above appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the Supreme court struck down Section 32 (b) of the andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 by which all buildings constructed on and after 26-8-1957 were exempted from the operation of the Rent Act as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in Motor general Traders Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1) AIR 1984, Supreme Court, Page 121. While striking down the Section, the Supreme Court observed that it was open to the State Government to grant exemption for a limited period of time either by Amending the Act or by issuing a notification under Section 26 of the Act. Pursuant to the said observations, the state Government issued G O Ms No 636 dated 29-12-1983 exempting all buildings from the operation of the Rent Act for a period of 10 years from the date of their construction.

( 7 ) WHEN the matter first came before us. Mr. J. Eswara Prasad, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and pass a decree in view of the fact that the period of exemption for 10 years had expired during the pendency of the suit. In support of his contention, he relied upon a judgment of the supreme Court in Vineetkumar Vs. Mangal sain (2) AIR 1985 Supreme Court Page 817, and also two judgments of this Court in Kerala Transport Co Vs A. Kumar agarwal (3) 1985 (II) ALT Page 352 and k D J Vithalani Vs B. Kameswara Rao (4) 1986 (I) ALT Page 83 in which it was held that the suit lapses after the expiry of the exemption period" and the provisions of the Rent Control Act would be attracted.

( 8 ) ON the other hand, Mr C. Poornaiah, the learned Counsel for the respondent contended that since the suit was filed during the period of exemption, any decree obtained in such suit is free from the fetters of Section 10 and the parties are governed by the law as existing on the date of the institution of the suit. For this proposition, he relied upon a Judgment of the Supreme Court in Nand Kishore Vs. Samundri Devi (5) AIR 1987, Supreme court, Page 2284.

( 9 ) I