RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J.

1. Both these appeals are preferred by the Bank of India against the judgment and decree passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam in O.S.Nos.307 of 1979 and O.S.No.116 of1981 dated 29.04.2016. While O.S.No.307 of 1979 was filed by the appellant-Bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,01,129.22 ps from the defendants based on an equitable mortgage, O.S.No.116 of 1981 was filed by the defendants in O.S.No.307 of 1979 seeking rendition of accounts by the Bank, and for payment of the balance amounts due to the plaintiffs with interest at 18% per annum; for eviction of the Bank from the plaint schedule premises occupied by them; for future damages for use and occupation or mesne profits from 01.03.1981 at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month; and for subsequent interest, and for the costs of the Suit.

2. By the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2016, the Learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam dismissed O.S.No.307 of 1979 filed by the Bank with costs holding that the defendant-landlords were entitled to get back their title deeds; the Suit in O.S.No.116 of 1981, filed by the landlord-defendants, was decreed with costs for recovery of a sum of Rs.16,85,046.10 ps from the Bank; the defendant-landlords were held entitled to claim rent at Rs.9,600/- per month from 31.03.1981 to 30.04.1985, and for damages and mesne profits at Rs.12,000/- per month, from 01.05.1985 till the date of vacating the premises, with interest at 12% per annum computed for each month on which the rent or damages, as the case may be, is due till the date of realization, upon payment of court fee on mesne profits; the defendant-landlords were also held entitled to claim subsequent interest on Rs.5,57,770.78 ps @ 12% per annum till the date of realisation; and Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages with interest thereon @ 12% per annum till the date of realisation. The defendant-landlords were directed to pay deficit court fee of Rs.7,830.46 ps, failing which they were held not entitled to execute the decree; and they were directed to give credit for the amount which the tenant-Bank had already deposited, and which was received by them from the Court on the earlier occasion.

3. While A.S.No.910 of 2017 is filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.307 of 1979, A.S.No.908 of 2017 is filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.116 of 1981. Both the Suits, in O.S.No.307 of 1979 and O.S.No.116 of 1981, were instituted long before Section 17(1)(ii)(a) of the A.P. Civil Courts Act, 1972 (“the Act” for brevity) was amended, and the words Rs.10,00,000/- was substituted for Rs.5,00,000/- by Act 8 of 2015 with effect from 24.04.2015. Both the Suits, instituted prior to the amendment of Section 17 of the Act, were pending on the date of the amendment, and were dismissed/decreed only thereafter on 29.04.2016.

4. Sri O. Manoher Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, would contend that the appeals, as filed before this Court, are not maintainable as the proper forum, for preferring an appeal against the order of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, is the District Court. It is necessary for us therefore to examine, in the first instance, whether the appeals filed before us are maintainable.

5. Section 17 (1)(ii) of the Act, after its amendment by Act 8 of 2015 with effect from 24.04.2015, reads thus.

“An appeal shall, when it is allowed by law, lie from any decree or order in a civil Suit or proceeding of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge (a) to the District Court, when the amount or value of the subject matter of the Suit or proceeding is not more than Rs.10,00,000/-; (b) to the High Court in other cases.”

6. It is only if the value of the subject matter of the Suit or proceedings is not more than Rs.10,00,000/-, would an appeal lie from the Court of the Senior Civil Judge to the District Court; and in cases where the amount or value, of the subject matter of the Suit or proceeding, exceeds Rs.10,00,000/- then an ap