( 1 ) THIS is an application under S. 50 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 to revise the order passed by the Munsiff, Belgaum on 13-1-1969 on an application filed by the petitioner under S. 151 of CPC. praying that the original application in HRC. No. 169 of 1965 be restored to file and heard on merits. ( 2 ) IN order to decide the simple point that arises in the present revision petition, it is necessary to refer to a few admitted facts. The present petitioners filed an application under S. 21 of the Mysore Rent Control act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for eviction of the respondent on the ground that the landlord needed the premises bona fide and reasonably for his personal occupation and that the tenant had been in arrears of rent. During the pendency of the application, the petitioners filed an application under S. 29 of the Act for stopping the proceedings on the ground that the tenant had not paid the arrears of rent as contemplated by the provisions contained therein and for his eviction. It appears that the tenant disputed the title of the landlord in the main petition and that issue about the right of petitioner to claim eviction had not been decided when an order under sub-sec. (4) of S. 29 of the Act directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises came to be passed. Being aggrieved by this order, the tenant approached this Court in CRP. No. 506 of 1968. This Court allowed that petition on 19th September, 1968 and set aside the order passed by the Munsiff. During the course of the order this court indicated that if the landlord's title was disputed, it was the duty of the Court to investigate in whom the title vested and that it was obligatory on the person who claimed to be the owner of the premises to show that he was entitled to recover the rent as also possession of the demised premises. ( 3 ) IT was after this order that the present petitioners filed an application purporting to be one under S. 151 CPC. praying that the HRC. proceedings may be revived and fixed for hearing on merits in the light of the observations made by this Court in the Revision Petition filed by the tenant. ( 3 ) IT was after this order that the present petitioners filed an application purporting to be one under S. 151 CPC. praying that the HRC. proceedings may be revived and fixed for hearing on merits in the light of the observations made by this Court in the Revision Petition filed by the tenant. The learned Munsiff dismissed that application with the following order:"the petitioner has filed this petition to fix the case for hearing. The case is already disposed off. If the petitioner wants any relief, he may file Misc. Application to take the HRC. matter on board. As there is no direction from High Court to proceed with the case, the case cannot be proceeded unless there is Misc. Application to restore the HRC. proceedings. "the petitioner challenges the correctness of this order. ( 4 ) I heard Mr. Goulay for the petitioner and Mr. R. P. Hiremath for the respondents. I have no doubt that the Munsiff has erred in dismissing the application filed before him on 10-1-1959 with a prayer for disposal of the original application on merits. It is necessary to mention that the proceeding under S. 29 is a proceeding "during the pendency of proceedings for eviction" under S. 21. The power conferred on the Court by Sec. 29 is intended to safeguard the interest of the landlord so as to debar the tenant from continuing to contest the proceedings for eviction without payment of arrears or the current rent. It may be that if an order stopping further proceedings and directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises is passed, there may not be any need to continue and dispose of the original proceedings; but if the order passed under s. 29 (4) is set aside by the High Court, then, the interim order as a consequence of which the original proceedings was disposed of, ceases to be operative and the original proceedings automatically stand revived. On receipt of the judgment of this Court in the Revision Petition, a duty is cast on the Court to take the original proceedings on file and dispose of the same on merits. On receipt of the judgment of this Court in the Revision Petition, a duty is cast on the Court to take the original proceedings on file and dispose of the same on merits. Any application which the landlord might file for revival of proceedings is in the nature of a reminder to the Court to perform its duty which arises as a consequence of its interim order that had for the time being put an end to the original proceedings being set aside and dispose of the issues that might have been raised by the parties in the original proceedings on its own merits. ( 5 ) INSTEAD of following this procedure which appears to be implicit in S. 29 itself, the Munsiff dismissed the landlord's petition on the ground that the case had already been disposed of and that the petitioner should file a miscellaneous application to take the HRC. proceedings on board. Rules have been framed under Section 59 of the Act on various matters including the procedure to be followed by the Controller, the Court, the district Judge or other appellate authority in the performance of their functions under the Act. There does not appear to be any express Rule laying down the procedure to be followed after an order under S. 29 (4) is set aside. But if Ss. 21 and 29 are read together, it should follow that any order of stoppage of proceedings and eviction of the tenant passed under sub-sec. (4) of S. 29 is of an interim nature and even if the landlord is put in possession, the original proceedings under sec. 21 remains suspended; such suspension may become final or permanent, if the interim order is not challenged or if challenged, has been confirmed by the competent authority. But, where the aggrieved party challenges the correctness of such order and succeeds in having it set aside, the logical consequence is to revive the original proceedings so as to require the Court to take the case on file and dispose it of on merits after recording such evidence as the parties might lead. Of course, if any evidence had already been recorded prior to the order under S. 29 (4), it will form a part of the proceedings without affecting the rights of the parties to lead any evidence on such issues as might have remained undecided on merits. Of course, if any evidence had already been recorded prior to the order under S. 29 (4), it will form a part of the proceedings without affecting the rights of the parties to lead any evidence on such issues as might have remained undecided on merits. ( 6 ) FOR these reasons, I hold that the order passed by the Munsiff is a clear case of failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in him. It is erroneous in law and cannot be supported. It is accordingly set aside and the munsiff is directed to take the original proceedings HRC. No. 159 of 1963 on file and dispose it of according to law within three months from the date of receipt of the records. No costs. --- *** --- .