JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE following questions of law arise for consideration in these two appeals : (1) Whether determination of a contractual tenancy by notice to quit under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act or otherwise, or the passing of a decree for eviction by a Civil Court, during the ten year period of exemption become null and void, if, during the pendency of the suit in the trial Court or Court of appeal the said period expires? (2) Whether a decree for mesne profits likewise obtained for the period when the building was not covered by the Rent Control Law, becomes ineffective and is liable to be set aside when the period of exemption of ten years expires during the pendency of the appeal?

( 2 ) THE following facts in C. C. C. A. No. 78/81 are material. The lease in favour of the respondent in this appeal commenced on October 7, 1972, the rent being Rs. 750/- per month. The respondent-landlord gave a notice under S. 106 of the T. P. Act on December 23, 1978, terminating the tenancy by the end of January, 1979. The suit for possession and for past damages at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month for the months of February, March, April, 1979 was filed on April 28, 1979. According to the landlord the building was constructed in 1972 and according to the law as it stood then, the suit was filed in Civil Court. The tenant did not dispute the date of construction of the building as 1972. The plaintiff as P. W. 1 stated that he purchased the open land in September, 1969 for Rs. 10,000/- and constructed the godown in question in 1972-73, and that the defendant-appellant is his first-tenant. Apart from not disputing these facts, the tenant as D. W. 1 stated that the building was at the time of his occupation just completed and there was no plastering or flooring. The above facts would, in our view, leave no doubt that the building was in fact constructed in 1972 and let out to the tenant in the same year on October 7, 1972. We are therefore not prepared to accept the contention of the respondent that the matter has to go back to the lower Court for further investigation on this question. We are of the view that the building was constructed in 1972 and the lease commenced on October 7,1972. We are also of the view that the Court below was right in holding that the notice under S. 106, T. P. Act issued on December 23,1978 is in compliance with the said section and that notice of two months is not necessary. The trial Court passed a decree for eviction on April 4, 1981 together with a decree for damages at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- P. M. from February 1, 1979 till date of eviction.

( 3 ) IT is on the basis of these facts that we will decide the two questions that have already been set out above.

( 4 ) IN C. C. C. A. No. 135/82 three separate units belonging to the same landlord were let out to the same tenant at rents of Rs. 475/-, Rs. 500/- and Rs. 525/- p. m. respectively. Three notices to quit under S. 106 of the T. P. Act were issued on August 23,1979 terminating the respective tenancies with the end of September, 1979. A single suit was filed in respect of three premises on February 28, 1980. According to the plaintiff, he purchased the land on April 14, 1969 under Ex. A-16 and obtained municipal permission, Ex. A-1, for construction on January 7, 1972. The three godowns in question were constructed in 1972-73 and they were numbered subsequent to the grant of permit above mentioned. The plaintiff claimed possession and damages at the rate of Rs. 3100/- p. m. from October, 1979 till January, 1980 for all the three units put together and also future damages at the same rate from the date of suit. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the tenant having filed an application for deposit of the rent before the Rent Controller in 1980 the building must be treated as having been constructed subsequent to 1957 so as to enable the civil court to pass a decree, as per the law that stood then. In the result, the suit w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document