SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J.

Vide the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 16.08.2016 passed in R.A.No.176 of 2013 by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, whereby, the appeal filed by them against the order passed in RC No.69 of 2011, dated 31.07.2013 by the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad, has been dismissed.

2. When the present petition was listed before the learned Single Judge, Sri Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy, on 01.08.2017, an order was passed, which reads as under:

“In view of present anomalous situation, I am unable to express any view with regard to correctness of either of the judgments. Hence, the following question is formulated to answer by Division Bench:

Whether fair rent fixed by Rent Controller exceeding the upper limit of jurisdiction of Rent controller fixed under Section 32 of the Act from the date of petition under Section 4(1) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, takes away the jurisdiction that conferred on the Rent Controller in a petition filed under Section 10 of the Act, subsequent to filing of petition under Section 4(1) of the Act?.”

3. Thus, the present petition is listed before this Court to answer the reference.

4. The facts of the case are that:

The respondent is a landlady who filed RC No. 68 of 2011 on 11.07.2011 for fixation of fair rent of premises from Rs.2,600/- per month to Rs.15,000/- per month. Meanwhile, the respondent/landlady filed R.C.No.69 of 2011 for eviction of tenants on 14.11.2011 on various grounds. The fixation of fair rent application i.e., RC No.69 of 2011 was allowed on 31.07.2013 enhancing the rent to Rs.5,000/- per month. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners/tenants had filed R.A. No. 176 of 2013 on the file of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and the same was dismissed on 16.08.2016 confirming the order of the lower Court.

5. Being aggrieved again, the tenants preferred present CRP and canvassed that the Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction as the rent is enhanced beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Rent Controller.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants argued that prior to amendment Act No. 17/2005, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Rent Control Court was if rent is up to Rs.1,000/- per month. In view of the Government having issued G.O.Ms.No.636 dated 24.12.1983 the operation of the provisions of the Act on all the newly constructed buildings were exempted, irrespective of date of construction, for a period of 10 years from the date on which their construction was completed and those premises where the rent was more than Rs.1,000/- per month, from the provisions of Rent Control Act. The application for fixation of fair rent was filed on 11.07.2011 and an eviction petition was filed in the same year, but on a later date.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants submits that the judgment rendered in 2012 Law Suits AP Page 8 or 2013 (3) ALT page 421 of JCB para 7 of the judgment also refers to an identical question which fell for consideration by the Court in Anil Kumar R. Kamdar (died per LRs) Vs. Dasari Vaikuntam (died per LRs) in CRP No.5025 of 2009 dated 21.07.2010. The learned Single Judge by the aforesaid judgment dated 21.07.2010 repelled the submissions and held that since the Rent Controller has jurisdiction to entertain the eviction on the date of filing the petition, subsequent event of fixation of fair rent albeit with retrospective effect will not oust the jurisdiction of the Court and a reliance was made by learned judge relying on a Full Bench of this Court in Ram Vilas Bajaj Vs. Ashok Kumar 2007 (4) ALT page 348. Similarly, the judgment cited in 2012 Law Suit AP 45 also refers to the said judgment. The reference is confined to the judgments of Justice Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy and Dr. Justice Sri B. Siva Sankara Rao. The aforesaid two judgments are conflicting judgments. The judgment rendered by justi