( 1 ) THIS is a revision under Sec. 22 of the A. P. Act 15 of 1960 (hereinafter called the Act ). The building of the petitioner was requisitioned by an order dated 2-3-1973 under Section 3 of the Act. The petitioner applied for fixation of fair rent to the Controller. The Controller enhanced the rent from Rs. 2. 600/- per month to Rs. 4,500/ -. In appeal it was enhanced to rs. 4. 900/-per month with effect from 1-1-1979. Against that order this revision is filed.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner urged that G. O. Ms. No. 1302 dated 18-5-1966 is totally ignored. As per the provisions in the said G. O. 6% per annum of the value of the building and 6% per annum of the value of the land must be taken into "consideration for fixing the fair rent. It is next contended that the report Ex. A-1 given by the Registered valuer one hasan Ali, according to which the building fetches a sum of Rs. 18. 000/- per month, is totally disregarded. The further contention of the petitioner is that the rent must be fixed from the date of tenancy i. e. 1-3-1973 but not from the date of application.

( 3 ) BEFORE examining the merits the learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection stating that the C. R. P. is not maintainable. He urged that in view of G. O. Ms. No. 636 dated 29-12-1983, the authorities under the Act have no jurisdiction to fix the fair rent as the building itself is outside the purview of the Act as the rent fixed for this building is more than Rs. 1. 000/ -.

( 4 ) IT is true that the State Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 636 on 29-12-1983 under sec. 26 of the Act exempting all buildings for a period of ten years from the date on which construction was completed and all buildings with rent of more than Rs. 1. 000/- per month with effect from 26-10-1983. The rent fixed for the building in question even under the requisition order is rs. 2,600/- p. m. and hence as per the above G. O. the Act has no application. However the question is whether the proceedings once started before the authority which has jurisdiction can be ousted unless the Legislature has expressly or by necessary intendment directed so. The requisition in this case was made on 2-3-72 under sec. 3 of tne Act. The present application was filed u/sec. 4 on 4-1-79 seeking the relief from the date of requisition. The Notification under sec. 26 was issued on 13-5-86 (sic. 29-12-1983 ). Hence We must see whether the subsequent notification has the effect of ousting the jurisdiction of the court constituted under the Act. This depends upon the question whether the notification is prospective or retrospective in operation.

( 5 ) ON this question the learned counsel for the respondent relied on two judgments of this court interpreting the above G. O. and contended that the G. O. is retrospective in operation and the jurisdiction of the authorities under sec. 4 of the Act is ousted.

( 6 ) IN Senior Administrative and A. O. A. M. D. Dept. vs. E. P. B. Mania, a Division Bench dissented with the view expressed by the single judge that the G. O. applies only to these buildings which were constructed after 29-12-83 (the date on which the G. O. was issued) and held that the intention of the above G. O. is to grant exemption to all buildings for a period of ten years from the date of their completion whether these buildings were constructed either before or after the issuance of the G. O. In fact Sec. 32 of the act even when it was struck down by the Supreme Court in part (S. 32 (b) ) excludes from the purview of the Act only buildings owned by the Government and buildings constructed on or after 26th August, 1957. However under sec. 26 of the Act while exempting the buildings from the operation of the Act a new category of buildings fetching a monthly rent exceeding rs. 1000/- are also excluded from the purview of the Act. The notification dated 29-12-1983 exempted such buildings on and from 26th October, 1983. The principle enunciated by the Division Be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document