(1.) In these two second appeals, the defandants are the appellants. The suits were filed against the tenants In occupation of separate portions of the plaintiff's building for recovery of possession by evicting them from those portions and for recovery of arrears of arrears of rent. The suits were tried together and a common judgment was delivered be the trial court dismissing the suits for eviction and recovery of possession and decreeing the suits for rent. The appeals preferred by the plaintiff were also heard together and a common judgment was pronounced by the appellate court. The appeals were allowed decreeing the plaintiff's suits for eviction and for recovery of possession of portions of the building in the occupation of the tenams,
(2.) The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeals may briefly be stated The respondent, who Is the same in these two appeals, will re referred to hereafter as the 'landlord' and the appellants as the tenants'. The landioid is the owner of what was originally a low terraced building in the main bazar at Tenali. The tenants have been In occupation of two separate porticns of that building tor a long time payice an annual rental of Rs 300/- each. The landlord desired to construct a first -flcor on this building and for that purpose had to practically demolish the existing law terraced building. He applied 10 the Mur iclpality and necessary permission was granted In October, 1963. The lease agreement between the landlord and the tenants was' to expire by 9-8-1964. By virtue of an agreement come to between the Itndiord and the tenants, the tenants had vacated the portions of the building in their occupation in order to enable the landlord to carry out his reconstruction of the ground-floor and the const uction of the first-floor. The construction was completed even during the currency of the lease. The tenants were put in possession of the newly constructed portions of the ground-floor on the stipulation that the tenancy was to continue for a period of four years from 10-8-1964 to 9-8-1968 at an increased annual rental of Rs. 500/- The period off our years had expired by 9-8 1968. Inspite of a notice issued by the landlord to the tenants to vacate the portions of the building in their occupation they did not do so. They were also in arrears of rent. The landlord, therefore filed the two suits for eviction of the tenants and also for recovery of arrears of rent. The tenants resisted the suits for eviction. It was urged by them that they could be evicted only under section 10 of the andhra Pradash Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, I960 (here ln after referred to as 'the Act") and that the' Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits. This contention of the tenants found favour with the trial court. The suits for eviction were therefore, dismissed on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits, while passing a decree for arrears of rent The lower appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court and held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits
(3.) The contention of the landlord is that under section 32 (b) of the Act, the building in the occupation of the tenants is one which is constructed after after the 26th of August, 1957. Section 32(b) of the Act enacts that the provisions of the Act shall not apply to any building constructed on or after the 26th August. 1957.