JUDGMENT:- In this Second Appeal, the only question that arises is whether the suit building is exempted under the provisions of section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The suit property and the adjoining properties on the oast and west belong to the plaintiffs. They were originally constructed with mud walls. Since they were in a dilapidated condition, the plaintiffs claimed to have demolished the same and put up new constructions in the month of December, 1966. The defendant became a tenant in respect of one of the shops so put up on a monthly rent of Rs. 100. Originally he was to occupy the property for only one year . But, even after the expiry of the period of one year, the defendant continued to occupy the shop and did not vacate the premises. The plaintiffs claimed that they required the shop for their convenient enjoyment and also for additional accommodation. They pointed out that the entire construction of the property having been completed in 1966, the provisions of section 3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act would apply so as to except the building from the operation of the said Act. They, therefore, came forward with a suit in the civil Court praying for recovery of possession of the newly-constructed shop in the possession of the defendant bearing door No. 69, in Tamil Sangam Road, Madurai Town, and for mesne profits.

2. The defendant resisted the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs had effected only minor repairs to the portion of Door No. 69, that the building had not been demolished and reconstructed as required by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, that the said building was, therefore, covered by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, and that he was entitled to the benefit of the said Act, so that in the absence of a valid notice to quit and in the absence of proceedings before the authorities constituted under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, he was not liable to be evicted and was entitled to the benefit of the said Act. He, therefore, contested the suit on the ground that the suit itself was not maintainable.

3. The trial Court held that even though the suit property was constructed in the year 1966, since it was only a portion of the building bearing door No. 69 it was not exempt from that Act so that the provisions of the said Act would apply and that, therefore, the suit for ejectment was not maintainable. The suit was, therefore, dismissed. The plaintiffs, therefore, appealed to the lower appellate Court.

4. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge pointed out in paragraph 6 of his judgment that in the instant case, it was not in dispute that the inpugned shop along with the other shops were recently constructed in such a way that they could be let out separately, that they were let out to independent tenants and that each shop had an independent entrance and was thus capable of being let out separately for. non-residential purposes. The learned Judge was inclined to hold that this was a case which would clearly come under the scope and purview of section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and that the suit was. perfectly maintainable in the civil Court by virtue of the said provisions. Before him there was a plea based on the amendment under Act XXXIII of 1973 to the provision of section 30 of the Act. The learned Judge held that the amendment did not apply to the pending proceedings and that, therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to the reliefs prayed for. He left open the question of mesne profits to be decided in separate proceedings under Order 20, rule 12, Civil Procedure Code.

5. In the present appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant (defendant) submitted that section 30 of the Act would not apply to the present property. The first part of his objection was that section 30 of the Act provided that.

“Nothing conta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document