The court is bound to apply the substantive law as it stands on the date of the decision, even if the law was different when the suit was instituted.

JUDGMENT:- This second appeal arises out of a suit in ejectment. The legal representative of the plaintiff-landlord landlord is the appellant before me. The premises is door No. 36 Muthumari Chetti St., Mannady, Madras, which the respondent in this appeal (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) had taken on lease on a monthly rent of Rs. 700. According to the landlord (plaintiff) the building had been put up in the year 1965 and therefore the same was exempt under S. 30 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, Act 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as it then stood. It may be noted that under the above provision, any building constructed after the commencement of the Act was exempt from the provisions of the Act. Therefore in respect of such buildings, the landlord need not make out a case under S. 10 of the Act to evict the tenant. When the suit was filed in the present case, admittedly the building was exempt from the provisions of the Act and therefore the landlord had no necessity to make out any of the grounds under S. 10 of the Act and go before the Rent Controller. Hence the suit was filed in the City Civil Court for possession after duly terminating the tenancy.

2. The tenant raised various contentions including that the building had been constructed even prior to the commencement of the Act. But they had been negatived on merits.

3. During the pendency of the suit before the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, the Amending Act, Act 23 of 1973, came into force. By virtue of that Act, sub-s. (1) of S. 30 has been substituted and now according to the amended provision, even a building constructed after the commencement of the Act would have exemption from the provisions of the Act only for a period of five years from the date of completion of the construction. This amendment came into force on 30-6-1973. As I said, the suit was then pending before the trial

court. The said court passed a decree for possession after holding that the Amending Act was not retrospective and that it did not affect pending proceedings.

4. On appeal by the tenant, the decree for possession has been modified, in that, the decree is made subject to the provisions of Act 18 of 1960. The effect at the decree passed by the first appellate Court is that the landlord has to go before the Rent Controller and make out a ground for eviction under S. 10 of the Act before ever the decree can be executed. The legal representative of the landlord has filed this second appeal contending that the first appellate Court was not right in modifying the decree of the trial court for possession and incorporating a clause that the decree is subject to the provisions of Act 18 of 1960.

5. The learned counsel for the tenant tried to contend that the amendment under Act 23 of 1973 is retrospective in character. But there is nothing in the Amending Act to indicate that the Legislature intended to give retrospective effect to the said provision. This has been recognised by several decisions of this court. Therefore one has to proceed on the basis that the amendment is only prospective.

6. Even so the question for consideration is whether in the present case the landlord is entitled to a decree for possession without the qualification imposed by the first appellate Court.

7. It is settled law as far as this Court is concerned that even in respect of a building which is covered by the provisions of the Act, the Civil Court's jurisdiction to entertain a suit for possession is not ousted. Of course a decree passed by the Civil Court for possession in such a case should necessarily be subject to the provisions of the Act. That means even if, when the present suit was instituted, the building in question was within the purview of the Act, the Civil Court would have had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On facts, the suit building was exempt from the provisions of the Act when the suit was filed but before ever the court could give