P ETHIRAJAMMAL Vs. N HASSAN KANNO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit in ejectment. The legal representative of the plaintiff-landlord is the appellant before me. The 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.