IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY SEOCND APPEAL No.1019 of 2009 Between: Royal Silk Centre, represented by its partner and two others … Petitioners And Todavarthi Varalaxmi and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1019 of 2009 ORDER:- The unsuccessful defendants in both the courts below filed this second appeal assailing the judgment of the Principal District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry dated 08.09.2009 in dismissing A.S.No.38 of 2007, confirming the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.1619 of 2002, dated 23.11.2006 by I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, decreeing the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs for eviction of the defendants from the suit schedule property. The only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants is that they are entitled to protection under the amended provisions of Act No.17 of 2005 amending Section 32 (c) namely exempting the buildings from the application of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for brevity, “the Act”) where the rent exceeds Rs.3,500/- per month in the area covered by the Municipal Corporations and Rs.2,000/- per month in other areas. Since the rent payable by the appellants to the suit schedule property is less than Rs.3,500/- per month, the same is covered by the Act. Hence, they cannot be evicted and the civil Court should not have passed a decree. Accordingly, the written statement was amended by filing additional written statement claiming benefits under the Act. But, the trial Court has erroneously rejected the said contention and decreed the suit. On appeal being filed, the lower appellate Court after following the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Ramvilas Bajaj and others v. Ashok Kumar and others[1], wherein it was held that the amendment of Section 32(c) of the Act is prospective in operation and does not effect the proceedings pending as on the date of its coming into force before the civil Courts or appellate, revision or executing courts. The said cases are required to be decided without reference to and application of the provisions of the amendment Act of 2005 and accordingly dismissed the appeal confirming the eviction. As early as in the year 1987, the Supreme Court in Nanda Kishore Marwah and others, v. Smt.Samundri Devi[2] held that if the period of ten years elapsed during the pendency of the eviction suit or appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is a continuation of the suit, then the tenant would be entitled to the benefits of the Act. The Apex Court while considering the aspects; whether the U.P.Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act (13 of 1972), will be applicable to the eviction proceedings and whether the suit could be decreed as the protection available under the Act will not be available to the tenant as the ten years expired during the pendency of the suit, held that the rights of the parties will be determined on the basis of the rights available to them on the date of institution of the suit. Section 20 of the Act 13 of 1972 bars the suit for eviction of the tenant except on the specified grounds – (1) Save as provided in sub section (2) no suit shall be instituted for eviction of a tenant from a building notwithstanding the determination of the tenancy by efflux of time or on the expiration of a notice to quit or in any other manner, which clearly indicates that the restriction put under Section 20 of Act 13 of 1972 Is to the institution of the suit itself and, therefore, it is clear that if the provisions of this Act applies then no suit for eviction can be instituted except on the grounds specified in the sub-sections of this Section and that during the pendency of the litigation even if ten years expired, the restriction will not be attracted as the suit has already been instituted within ten years and, therefore, restriction as provided for in Section 20 of the Act 13 of 1972 cannot be attracted. Following the same, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh[3] at para 9 held that we are clearly of the opinion that having regard to the language we must find the reason and the spirit of the law. If the immunity from the operation of the Rent Act is made and depended upon the ultimate disposal of the case within the period of exemption of ten years, which is in reality and impossibility, then there would be empty reasons. In our opinion, bearing in mind the well-settled principles that the rights of the parties crystalise on the date of the institution of the suit as enunciated by this Court in Om Prakash Gupta v. Dig Vijendrapal Gupta (AIR 1982 SC 1230(2)), the meaningful construction must be that the exemption would apply for a period of ten years and would continue to be available until suit is disposed of or adjudicated. Such suit or proceeding must be instituted within the stipulated period of ten years. Once rights crystalise the adjudication must be in accordance with law. In the light of the law laid down by the apex Court as referred supra, no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. However, the appellants/tenants are granted three months time for eviction and handover possession of the suit schedule property subject to their undertaking that he will vacate and hand over the possession after expiry of three months, if they failed to obtain necessary orders. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 01st April 2010 lmv [1] 2007(4) ALT page 348 [2] AIR 1987 SC 2284 [3] AIR 1988 SC 2031