THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL Nos.1137, 1144, and 1182 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: These three second appeals are between the same parties. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment. The parties are referred to as arrayed in S.A.No.1137 of 2011. The appellant is the owner of premises bearing No.1-3- 176/4/G/A and B, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad. He leased the same to the respondent for being used partly for residential and partly for commercial. Disputes arose between the parties. The appellant filed O.S.No.1497 of 2000 in the Court of the XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the respondent for eviction by issuing a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short ‘the Act’). The respondent on the other hand, filed O.S.No.5877 of 1999 in the same Court for injunction. While the appellant pleaded that the respondent is liable to be evicted once the tenancy is terminated, the respondent raised the plea as to the maintainability of the suit having regard to the quantum of rent. He has also filed a counter claim in O.S.No.1497 of 2000 for a sum of Rs.79,000/- stating that it was paid for undertaking construction in the suit schedule premises. Both the suits were clubbed. Through a common judgment, dated 10.12.2007, the trial Court decreed O.S.No.1497 of 2000 and dismissed O.S.No.5877 of 1999. The counter claim in O.S.No.1497 of 2000 was rejected. The respondent filed A.S.Nos.72 and 73 of 2008 against the decrees in the Court of the XII Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Through a common judgment, dated 06.04.2011, the lower appellate Court on the one hand upheld the decree for eviction, but on the other, decreed the suit for injunction. It has also passed a decree in the counter-claim. Feeling aggrieved by the decree for perpetual injunction passed in O.S.No.5877 of 1999 and granting decree for counter claim in O.S.No.1497 of 2000, the appellant filed S.A.Nos.1137 and 1144 of 2011. The respondent, on the other hand, filed S.A.No.1182 of 2011 challenging the decree for eviction. Heard Sri S.Balchand, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri B.Vjaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. As observed earlier, the trial Court clubbed both the suits and recorded common evidence. The following issues and additional issues were framed in the respective suits: O.S.No.1497 of 2000 Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff has issued notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to the defendant and if so, whether that is valid termination of tenancy? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for eviction against the defendant as prayed for? Additional Issues: 1. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit in view of the amendment of the R.C. Act? 2. Whether the plaintiff spent Rs.79,133.90 ps to construct two shopping complexes? O.S.No.5877 of 1999: Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff spent Rs.79,133.90 ps to construct two shopping complexes? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for? The appellant deposed as P.W.1 and he filed Exs.A1 to A55. On behalf of the respondent, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B17 were filed. The suit for injunction was dismissed and the one for eviction was decreed. The counter claim filed therein was rejected. The lower appellate Court framed common points in the appeals and disposed of the same in the manner, which was already indicated above. The relationship of lessor and lessee between the parties herein is not in dispute. The tenancy was terminated through Ex.A2. The admitted rent in respect of the premises was Rs.2,600/- per month. The respondent sought to resist the suit for eviction on the ground that the subject matter is covered by the provisions of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Rent Control Act’). It, however, deserves to be noticed that the Rent Control Act was amended in the year 2005 enhancing the limits of rent from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.3,500/-. But, the suit was filed long before the amendment. As on the date on which the suit for eviction was filed, the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller was only in respect of premises with rent of Rs.1,000/- and below. A Larger Bench of this Court took the view that the amendment to the Rent Control Act is prospective in nature. As of now, the same law holds good, since the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not suspend the judgment in the S.L.Ps., that are pending before it. Therefore, the contention of the respondent in this regard cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, the age of the building justified the exclusion of the provisions of the said enactment. The counter claim made by the respondent was in relation to the alleged expenditure incurred by him for construction or development. It is well settled that a tenant can incur expenditure for development or construction of the premises only with the specific permission of the landlord or lessor. Any expenditure incurred by him on his own accord cannot be recovered from the landlord. The trial Court dismissed the counter claim. The lower appellate Court allowed it almost by placing the burden upon the appellant. Further, it proceeded on the assumption that the appellant did not file any written statement to the counter claim. The record is otherwise. Therefore, the decree passed by the lower appellate Court allowing the counter claim cannot be sustained in law. The lower appellate Court curiously enough, has decreed the suit for injunction even while directing eviction. The suit for eviction filed by the tenant to restrain the landlord to evict him otherwise than through process provided for in law virtually becomes redundant, once a suit for injunction is filed. This aspect was not taken into account. S.A.Nos.1137 and 1144 of 2011 are allowed and the decree passed in O.S.No.5877 of 1999 by the lower appellate Court and the decree allowing the counter-claim in O.S.No.1497 of 2000 are set aside. S.A.No.1182 of 2011 filed against the decree for eviction passed in O.S.No.1497 of 2000 is dismissed. The learned counsel for the respondent i.e. lessee submits that his client may be granted reasonable time to vacate the premises. The said request is strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the appellant stating that there are accumulated arrears of rent. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, time till 30.05.2012 is granted to the respondent to vacate the premises subject to the conditions that: a. he shall clear the arrears of rent, if any, as may be determined by the Court, within four weeks from today; b. he shall pay rents in accordance with the decree on or before 10th or every month, commencing from January, 2012; and c. if the respondent fails to comply with those conditions, it shall be open to the appellant to seek execution of the decree. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:14.12.2011. kdl