MALIMATH, J. ( 1 ) THIS second appeal hsa come before us on a reference made by Justice venkataswami by his order d|. 22nd Nov 1972 on the ground that there is some conflict between the decisions of this Court in the cases in Parvath bai v. Damodar Anant Hegde, (1965) 1 Myslj. 100. and the unreponte decision in Situ Hengsu v. B. Kamalabai, Exsa. 100/1966. decided on 14-4-1967 on the question of applicability of S. 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act 1961 to pending proceedings. ( 2 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 6 instituted RCS. 377 of 1954 in the Court of the munsiff at Belgaum on the 25th of August 1964 for possession of the suit house situate in Madhavapur and for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 280 alleging that the appellant-defendant is a monthly tenant under them and that his tenancy has been duly terminted. The I Addl Munsiff Belgaum made a decree for possession and arrears of rent of Rs. 217 with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of suit till the date of payment and for future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 7 per month from the date Off suit till the date of delivery of possession. CA. 229 of 1966 preferred against the said decree was dismissed by -the II Addl Civil Judge Belgaum. It is the said decree made by the II Addl Civil Judge that is challenged by the defendant in this second appeal. ( 3 ) IT was contended by Shri W. K. Joshi learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the learned Civil Judge committed an error of law in holding that S. 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is not applicable to the pending proceedings. S. 21 which is in Part V of the Act provides that no order or decree for possession of any premises shall be made by any Court in favour of the landlord and against the tenant except on an application made tothe Court only on one or more grounds specified in that section. Part V of the Act became applicable to the area described as " Belgaum Municipal Borough " in Item 1 of Sch. II to the Act with effect from 31-12-1961 the date when the Act came into force. Part V of the Act became applicable to the area described as " Belgaum Municipal Borough " in Item 1 of Sch. II to the Act with effect from 31-12-1961 the date when the Act came into force. Admittedly Madhavapur was not a part of the belgaum Municipal Borough area on 31-12-1961. It was submitted that part V of the Act which was not applicable to Madhavapur on the date of suit was made applicable to Madhavapur during the pendency of the appeal in the Court below. It was contended that the learned Civil Judge committed an error of law in holding that S. 21 of the Act which became applicable during thet pendency of the appeal cannpt govern pending proceedings. On this qustion Justice Venkataswami noticed that there is a conflict between the two decisions of this Court viz the) one reported in 1965 (1) Myslj. 100 (1) and the decision in Exsa. 100 of 1966. It is tq resolve this conflict that the appeal has been referred to a Division Bench. ( 4 ) WHEN the caae was taken up for hearing we asked Shri W. K. Joshi as to on what basis he contends that Part V of the Act became applicable to Madhavapur during the pendency of the appeal in the Court of the Civil judge as no notification making Part V of the Act applicable to Madhavapur has been produced. Shri Joshi submitted that that is the assumption on which the case has been argued before the learned Civil Judge and that if he is given time he will ascertain and produce the relevant notification. We therefore gave time to produce the necessary notification making Part V of the Act applicable to Madhavapur. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties submitted that there is no such notification issued under the Act making the provisions of Part V of the Act applicable tq madhavapur area. It was however submitted by Shri Joshi that the area of the Belgaum Municipal Borough was extended so as to include madhavapur within it during the pendency of the appeal in the Court of the civil Judge and that therefore Part V of the Act became automatically applicable. No notification extending the limits of the Belgaum Municipal borough so as to include Madhavapur area in the same has been produced before us. No notification extending the limits of the Belgaum Municipal borough so as to include Madhavapur area in the same has been produced before us. Even assuming that the limits of the Belgaum Municipal borough have been extended the question that still survives for consideration is as to whether the Act became automaticaly applicable to the extended area. ( 5 ) SUB-SECS (1) to (6) of S. 2 which are material for the purpose of this case may be extracted as follows ; "2. Application of the Act.- it is Clear from sub-sec (3) of S. 2 that the Parts IV and V of the act became applicable to the areas specified in Sch. II with effect from 31-12-61 the date on which the Act came into force. Item 1 of the Sch. II with which we are concerned reads: "belgaum Municipal Borough". On the date on which the Act came into force there was the Bejgaum Municipal Borough constituted under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act 1925 in respect of a specified area. It is that area which is described in Item 1 of Sch. II. Sub-sec (3) of S. 2 of the Act provides that the Act shall be applicable to the areas specified in Sch. II. Sub-sec (5) empowers the State Govt to apply by a notification all or any of the provisions of Part V to other arears. Sub-sec (6) empowers the State Govt to direct that the provisions of part V shall cease to apply to any area whether specified in Sch. II or in a notification issued under S. 2 (5 ). It is therefore clear that Part V of the act will not be applicable to areas which are not specified in Sch. II and which are not included in any notification issued in that behalf under sub- sec (5) of Sec. 2 of that Act. Sub-sec (S) of Sec. 2 of the Act provides that part V of the Act shall be applicable to the 'areas specified in Sch. II. The emphasis is on the word 'areas'. What Sch. II therefore contains is the list of 'areas'. The 'areas' for the purpose of clarity and certainty must be clearly described. This can be done by giving the precise boundaries of the areas. If the areas can be clearly ascertained with reference to their names they can be described by their names. What Sch. II therefore contains is the list of 'areas'. The 'areas' for the purpose of clarity and certainty must be clearly described. This can be done by giving the precise boundaries of the areas. If the areas can be clearly ascertained with reference to their names they can be described by their names. Under the Act the areas in sch. II have not been described by giving their boundaries. Some areas are described by giving the names of the concerned local authorities or the names of the revenue villages. This is a convenient mode of description of the areas adopted by the Legislature. The firat item in Sch. II "belgaum municipal Borough " only means' the area known by that description on 1h'0 date of the Act Therefore if any area is subsequently included in the belgaum Municipal Borough area under some other statute the newly added area cannot automatically become part of the area specified in Sch. II. ( 6 ) WHEN certain areas are included in Sch. II for the purpose of application of part V of the Act, it has to be presumed that the Legislature in its wisdom thqught that having regard to the relevant facts and circumstances there is a need to apply the provisions of Part V to those areas. Sub-sec (5) of S. 2 confers power on the State Govt to apply the provisions of Part V of the Act to areas other than those included in Sch. II. That power can be exercised if the State Govt forms an opinion that facts and circumstances justify the applicability of Part V to a particular area. It is not reasonable to infer from the scheme of S. 2 of the Act that the legislature intended that Part V of the Act should apply to an area without the legislature or the State Govt applying its mind to the relevant factors justifying the applicability of Part V of the Act to the particular area. It is not reasonable to infer from the scheme of S. 2 of the Act that the legislature intended that Part V of the Act should apply to an area without the legislature or the State Govt applying its mind to the relevant factors justifying the applicability of Part V of the Act to the particular area. ( 7 ) WHEN for the purpose of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs act 1925 or the Mysore Municipalities Aet 1964 the area of the Municipal Borough or the Municipalitiy is extended under the relevant statute the only reasonable inference possible is that such an extension was made only for the purpose of the Bombay municipal Boroughs Act or the Mysore Municipalities Act as the case may be and not for the purpose of the Act. The objects of the Act and the other acts pertaining to the local authorities are different. That is why different procedures are prescribed for extending those enactments to particular areas. Part V of the Act can be applied to an area either by the legislature by including the same in Sch. II or by the Govt by issuing a notifieation under S. 2 (5) of the Act. No other mode of applying Part V is envisage. If the Legislature intended that there should be an automatic extension of Part V of the Act to areas which are subsequently added under other laws to the areas described in Sch. II the Legislature wpuld have made an express provision to that effect in sub-sec (3) of S. 2 by adding the words like "and other areas which may hereafter be constituted or known as of the description therein specified ". The absence of such words in sub-sec (3) of S. 2 makes it clear that the Legislature did not contemplatethe automatic applicability of Part V of the Act when the boundaries of the areas specified in Sch. II are altered under some other statutes. ( 8 ) THE view which we have taken accords with the view taken by the Calcutta. High Court in Briaj Mohini Dassi v. Gopeswar Mullick, ILR. 27 Cal. 202. The Bengal Tenancy Act was not applicable to the 'town of Calcutta'. The area of the Town of Calcutta was subsequently extended for the purposes of the Municipal Act. It was contended that the Bengal Tenancy Act was not applicable to the area so extended. High Court in Briaj Mohini Dassi v. Gopeswar Mullick, ILR. 27 Cal. 202. The Bengal Tenancy Act was not applicable to the 'town of Calcutta'. The area of the Town of Calcutta was subsequently extended for the purposes of the Municipal Act. It was contended that the Bengal Tenancy Act was not applicable to the area so extended. Tha High Court of Calcutta repelled that contention holding that the extension was only for the purposes of the municipal Act and not for the purposes of the Bengal Tenancy Act. ( 9 ) SHRI Joshi submitted that a contrary view has been taken the high Court of Bombay construing similar provisions of the Bombay Rents, hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act 1947. He relied upon the decision in Mahalinga Bandappa v. Venkatesh Waman, AIR. 1957 Bom. 201. The provisions of Part II of that Act were applicable to Shahapur Municipal Dist with effect from 4-10-1949 in respect of premises let for residence or education or let ftp Govt or local authority for the purpose of setting up offices or public hospital or dispensary. Therefore, the provisions of Part II of that Act were not applicable to premises let for business trade or storage. The shahapur Municipal Dist merged with Belgaum Municipal Borough and became a part of the Belgaum Municipal Borough by virtue of a notification d|. 25th June 1952. Part II of that Act had been applied to the Belgaum municipal Borough area with effect from 13-2-1948 in respect of premises let for all purposes incuding business trade or storage. The question debased before the. High Court of Bombay was as to whether Part II of that act became applicable in respect of premises let for business trade or storage with effect from 13-2-1948 or with effect from 25-6-1952 in respect of shahapur Municipal Dist which became part of the Belgaum Municipal borough as from 25-4-1052. The High Court of Bombay held that Part II of that Act cannot be regarded as having been in force with effect from 13-2- 1948 in respect of premises let for business or trade or storage. They held that the provisions of Part II in respect of premises let for business trade or storage would be applicable only with effect from 25-6-1952. They held that the provisions of Part II in respect of premises let for business trade or storage would be applicable only with effect from 25-6-1952. When the limits of the Belgaum Municipal Borough were extended by includingthe area of the Shahapur Municipal Dist within its limits under the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act 1925 the question as to whether the said extension autpmaticaly extends the applicability of the provisions of Part II of that Act which were in force in the Belgaum Municipal. Borough before that date was not debated before their Lordships of the bombay High Court. It was assumed that when the territorial limits of belgaum Municipal Borough were extendedthe provisions of Part II of that Act automatically stood extended without there being any notifica notifications issued under the Bombay Rent Control Act extending the provision of that Act to the newly added area. Hence Mahalinga's case (4) cannot be regarded as an authority laying down a contrary proposition. ( 10 ) IT was lastly contended by Shri Joshi that in view of S. 4 (3) of the Mysore Municipalities Act 1964 the provisions of Part V of the Act automatically applied when the limits of the Belgaum Municipal Borough were altered by including within its limits Madhavapur. S. 4 provides for the inclusion and exclusion of areas in or from the Munciipalities constituted under the Municipalities Act and in regard to the effect thereon. Sub-sec (3) of S. 4 reads as follows :"4 (3 ). When a local area is included in any Municipality this act and all notifications rules by laws orders resolutions directions and powers (including any tax levied) issued made or conferred under this Act or any cither law applicable to such Municipality shall apply to the said area from the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1 ). "sub-section (1) provides for inclusion or exclusion from the Municipality any local area. It is clear from this sub-section that any other law applicable to such Municipality shall apply to the area added under sub-sec (1 ). Sub-sec (3) will apply only if any other law is applicable to the Municipality whose area is extended. The expression "belgaum Municipal borough " used in Item 1 of Sch. It is clear from this sub-section that any other law applicable to such Municipality shall apply to the area added under sub-sec (1 ). Sub-sec (3) will apply only if any other law is applicable to the Municipality whose area is extended. The expression "belgaum Municipal borough " used in Item 1 of Sch. II to the Act we have held is only a description of the area to which Part of the Act has been made applicable. Those words cannot be understood as meaning ' Municipality' as defined in 9. 2 (15) of the Mysore Municipalities Act 1964. Hence no reliance can be placed on sub-sec (3) of S. 4 of the Mysore Municipalities Act in support of the contention that when the limits of any Municipality are altered by extending the area under S. 4 the provisions of Part V of the Act which were applicable to the Municipality before its limits were extended get automatically applied to the extended area of such Municipality. ( 11 ) AS no notification has been issued under sub-sec (5) of the Act applying Part V of the Act to Madhavapur area after the coming into force of the Act the inclusion of Madhavapur area within the limits of Belgaum municipal Borough or the Municipality of Belgaum under the provisions Off any other statute does not have the effect of making provisions of Part V of the Act applicable to Madhavapur area. We therefore hold that Part V of the Act did not become applicable to Madhavapur area. As Part V of the Act itself is not applicable to Madhavapur area the question as to whether s. 21 of the Act included in Part V applies to pending proceedings or not does not arise. This conclusion of ours precludes us from going into the question as to whether there is any conflict in the decisions of this court in regard to the applicability of Section 21 of the Act to pending proceedings. ( 12 ) AS Part V of the Act was not applicable to Madhavapur area the landlords were entitled to terminate the tenancy and to sue for ejectment. The Courts below were therefore righto in making a decree for possession against the appellant. ( 13 ) FOR the reasons stated above this appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs. ( 12 ) AS Part V of the Act was not applicable to Madhavapur area the landlords were entitled to terminate the tenancy and to sue for ejectment. The Courts below were therefore righto in making a decree for possession against the appellant. ( 13 ) FOR the reasons stated above this appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs. Three months time is given for vacating the suit premises from to day. --- *** --- .