Law applicable on the date of filing of the suit governs the suit.

1. The present revision has been preferred against the fair and decretal order dated 33. 1997 in E.A.No.827 of 1997 in E.P.No.1721 of 1996 in O.S.No.5485 of 1994 on the file of the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The respondent is the owner of the premises bearing door No.71, Mulla Sahab Street, Chennai. He let out the house and premises, being flat situated in the left hand side in the ground floor of the said premises bearing door No.71 to the petitioner herein on a monthly rent of Rs. 1800 for residential purpose on and from 9. 1989.

2. The respondent instituted O.S.No.5485 of 1994 for recovery of possession and for recovery of Rs. 18,000 being arrears of rent due for the period commencing from May, 1993 to February, 1994. The suit was presented on 3. 1994. The petitioner herein, though served with the suit summons, absented himself and the trial Court passed an ex parte decree on 12th October, 1995, directing the defendant in the suit to pay Rs. 18,000, together with interest at 6% per annum, to deliver vacant possession of the suit property and to pay Rs.4,470-50 towards the cost.

3. Based on the said decree, the respondent instituted E.P.No.1721 of 1996 to execute the decree. In the said execution petition, the petitioner filed a detailed applications, besides raising other contentions, contending that the decree is a nullity, that the execution petition cannot be proceeded that it deserves to be dismissed in terms of Section 10(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and that the decree is inexecutable. The petitioner/tenant also filed an Execution Application No.820 of 1997 under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the said application also the revision petitioner herein mainly contended that the decree passed by the Civil Court is inexecutable as the exemption granted under Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as Act) will not enure beyond period of five years from the date of completion of the building and the decree passed by the Civil Court is a nullity and it is inexecutable as Section 10(1) of the Act is a bar against the eviction of tenants either in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 or 14 to 16 of the Act. In the said application, the petitioner also challenged that even on the date of filing of the suit itself, the suit is not maintainable as more than five years have elapsed and that the exemption granted under Section 30 had already lapsed on the date of institution of the suit and that the plaint itself is inherently defective and the suit is not maintainable.

4. After contest, the Court below overruled the objection raised by the revision petitioner and dismissed the Execution Application No.827 of 1997 by its fair and decretal order dated 33. 1997. Being aggrieved by that order, the present revision has been preferred. The revision was admitted on 14. 1997 and the Court granted interim stay and subsequently, the respondent came with the petition to vacate the interim stay. At that stage, the counsel for either side represented that the revision itself be taken up for disposal. Accordingly, the revision was taken up for final disposal, and detailed arguments were advanced on various dates by the counsel appearing on either side.

5. The counsel for either side cited number of reported decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court and also referred to an order passed by Nainar Sundaram, J. on 29. 1990 in CRP No.2591 of 1990. It is true that the reference made by Nainar Sundaram, J. is pending and it has not been posted before the larger Bench to answer the questions formulated by the learned Judge. Nainar Sundaram, J. formulated the following three questions and referred the matter to a larger Bench, for being answered.

"1. Whether in a suit for eviction instituted before a Civil Court during the period of exemption unde