THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY S.A.No.743 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The appellant is a lessee of the respondents, in respect of a mulgi, in premises, bearing No.1-8-32/61/22/5, in Ground Floor, situated at P.G. Road, Secunderabad. O.S.No.86 of 2005 was filed, by the respondents, in the Court of I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, against the appellant, for eviction, and for recovery of a sum of Rs.33,765/-, as arrears of rent. Mesne profits at the rate of Rs.3,000/-, per month, from 01.10.2004, were also claimed. It was pleaded that, the initial monthly rent, when the lease commenced in the year 1991, was Rs.400/-, and the same was enhanced, in the year 1999, to Rs.1,000/-. The respondents filed R.C.No.78 of 2002 before the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad, for fixation of fair rent, and it was accordingly fixed at Rs.1,500/-, per month. Alleging that the appellant committed default in payment of rent, the respondents issued a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short ‘the T.P. Act’), requiring him to vacate the premises. The suit was opposed by the appellant, by filing a written statement. He pleaded that the rent of the premises is only Rs.1,000/-, per month, and since the Rent Control Act (for short ‘the Rent Act’) has been amended enhancing the limits of rent to Rs.3,500/-, the trial Court has no jurisdiction. After contest by the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit, on 27.08.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed A.S.No.216 of 2007 in the Court of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The appeal was dismissed, on 30.04.2010. Hence, this Second Appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the suit was not maintainable and it was barred under the provisions of the Rent Act. He contends that though the fair rent was fixed at Rs.1,500/-, per month, in R.C.No.78 of 2002, the same was reduced, in R.A.No.181 of 2004, by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. Learned counsel further submits that the notice issued under Section 106 of the T.P. Act, is defective. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that, as on the date of filing of the suit, the rent was Rs.1,500/-, per month, and there was no impediment for filing of the suit. Learned counsel submits that even the order in R.A.No.181 of 2004, did not result in ouster of jurisdiction of the civil Court. He submits that there is no defect in the notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act. The trail Court framed the following issues for its consideration: 1. “Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit in view of amendment of Rent Control Act? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession as prayed for? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for arrears of rent as prayed for? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits as prayed for?” The oral evidence before the trial Court comprised of the deposition of the 1st respondent, as PW.1, and that of the appellant, as DW.1. The respondents filed Exs.A.1 to A.4, which are copies of notices and postal acknowledgments. The appellant filed Exs.B.1 to B.4, which are certified copies of the judgments in R.C.No.78 of 2002 and R.A.No.181 of 2004; and copies of legal notice and reply. The point urged by the appellant, as to the jurisdiction of the trial Court, was of utmost significance. In case, the rent of the premises was Rs.1,000/-, or less, the trial Court did not have jurisdiction and the proceedings were to be initiated before the Rent Controller. It is a matter of record that in R.C.No.78 of 2002, the Rent Controller enhanced the rent for the premises from 1,000/- to Rs.1,500/-, per month, through its order, dated 17.12.2003. It is no doubt true that in R.A.No.181 of 2004, the appellate Court reduced the rent to Rs.1,220/- , per month. Even if that amount was to be taken into account, the trial Court did have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is true that after the institution of the suit, the Rent Act was amended, enhancing the limits of rent from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.3,500/- to bring the matters within the purview of that Act. However, the provision was not given retrospective effect, and this Court held, in Ramvilas Bajaj v. Ashok Kumar and another[1], that the amendment does not affect the proceedings initiated prior thereto. Therefore, the plea urged by the appellant, cannot be accepted. Though a vague and general plea was raised to the effect that the notice, marked as Ex.A.1, is not in accordance with law, it is not substantiated. Further, the Parliament amended Section 106 of the T.P. Act directing that notwithstanding any discrepancies in the notices, the consequences flowing out of it, do not get affected. This Court does not find any substantial question of law in the Second Appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant pleaded for time for his client to vacate the premises. The request is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. Having regard to the fact that the premises are commercial in nature, the appellant is granted time till 31.03.2011 for vacating the premises, subject to payment of rents regularly and clearance of arrears, if any, within one month from today. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:06.08.2010 GJ [1] 2007 (4) ALD 137 (LB)