( 1 ) THIS petition under Sec. 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is by the landlord. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection o,f his application filed under S. 29 (4) of the act, by holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant had not been established, by the III Addl. Munsiff, Belgaum in HRC. 228/1972. ( 2 ) A few facts are relevant to be mentioned. The landlord purchased the premises from its previous owner on 28-8-1972. At that time the respondent herein was already a tenant of the said premises. The previous landord issued a notice of attornment to the respondent, produced and marked as Ex. P3. Notwithstanding the said intimation, the tenant for some reason best known to himself, tendered the rent to the previous landlord in respect of the period subsequent to the date of purchase by the petitioner. The previous landlord very rightly refused to accept the rent and it is also alleged that he orally intimated the respondent that he should pay the rents thereafter to the petitioner. The respondent failed to pay the rents. The petitioner therefore instituted the proceedings for eviction under the appropriate provisions of the Act. After the petition was filed, the petitioner filed an application purporting to be under S. 29 (4) of the act requesting for stoppage of proceedings and for a direction that the tenant shoud vacate and deliver possession of the premises in accordance with law. At that stage, the respondent lodged his objection one of which has been that there was no relationship of tenancy between him and the landlord. The Court purporting to enquire into that objection, held that the very sale in favour of the petitioner bad not been proved and therefore there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The application therefore under S. 29 (4) of the Act came to be rejected. (IA. No III ). ( 3 ) ON behalf of the petitioner Shri P. P. Muthanna the learned counsel, submitted that the trial Court had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in pronquncing upon the validity of the sale in favour of the petitioner and therefore the petitioner could not have become the landlord of the respondent in respect of the suit premises. No III ). ( 3 ) ON behalf of the petitioner Shri P. P. Muthanna the learned counsel, submitted that the trial Court had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in pronquncing upon the validity of the sale in favour of the petitioner and therefore the petitioner could not have become the landlord of the respondent in respect of the suit premises. On behalf of the respondent, Shri a. V. Albal, the learned Counsel, principally contended that this petition was premature and at any rate the petitioner not having approached the first appellate Court under S: 48 of the Act, was not entitled to maintain any petition under S. 50 of the Act. In support of his submission, strong reliance was placed on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Gundurao prahlad v, Channawwa (1973) 1 Mys. L. J. 358. ( 4 ) IT is no doubt true that in Gundu Rao's case (I) this Court, has observed that in the face of the alternative remedy available to an aggrieved party under S. 48 of the Act by way of an appeal to, the Dist. Judge from the ultimate order passed by the Munsiff, the remedy under S. 50 (1), (i) of the Act by way of revision to this Court would not ordinarily be available. It seams to me fairly clear that the jurisdiction exercisable by this Court under S. 50 of the Act is of a discretionary character. The decision, therefore, amounts to this: That on the facts of that case, it was not a fit one for the exercise of this discretionary jurisdiction under S. 50 qf the Act. However, without expressing any concluded opinion as to the full import of this decision, it seems to me that this decision is clearly distinguishable and therefore inapplicable to the case on hand. That was a case where a preliminary issue as to the jurisdictional fact arising from a denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant had come up for consideration. The issue was dealt with as a preliminary issue in the main petition and finding recorded accordingly. It is against this finding that the party aggrieved had brought the matter up under S. 50 of the Act (o this Court, the circumstances are clearly different. The issue was dealt with as a preliminary issue in the main petition and finding recorded accordingly. It is against this finding that the party aggrieved had brought the matter up under S. 50 of the Act (o this Court, the circumstances are clearly different. The issue regarding relationship has been raised in the course of the disposal of an interlocutory application under S. 29 (4) of the Act. It is in the course of disposal of that application, the impugned finding came to be recorded. By this, I do not mean to say that in all circumstances such a finding recorded on a preliminary issue arising in the course o. f an interlocutory application, is necessarily independent of the main petition. Whether it is so or not is dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant ease, I am satisfied that this issue has been considered principally for the purpose of the disposal of an application under S. 29 (4) of the Act. That being so, no appeal -under S. 48 of the Act would lie against such a finding. In these circumstances, a revision under S. 50, is fully competent. To hold otherwise and accept the contention urged on behalf of the respondent, namely, that that the landlord should wait for the final decision of the case before taking the matter up in appeal and revision, would mean a deprivation of a statutory remedy available to the landlord under S. 29 c. f the Act. I am not therefore inclined to accept the contention of Shri Albal. ( 5 ) TURNING to the merits of the Case, it is clear from the order impugned that the learned Munsiff has adjudicated on the validity of the sale deed, Ex. P1, and on coming to the conclusion that it was invalid and did not operate to pass title to the landlord, he has concluded that the relationship of landord and tenant had not been satisfactorily established by the petitioner. P1, and on coming to the conclusion that it was invalid and did not operate to pass title to the landlord, he has concluded that the relationship of landord and tenant had not been satisfactorily established by the petitioner. This reasoning of the lenrned Munsiff is clearly erroneous for two reasons : (1) It is no part of the duty of a Rent Control Court to examine the validity or legality of the title to the property possessed by the landlord and that the Rent Court is concerned only with a question whether the parties are related as landlord and tenant; (2) It is clear from the material placed on record that the previous landlord, whose right to receive rent has not been disputed by the tenant in any manner, had clearly notified the tenant about the sale to the petitioner and called upon him to attorn to the petitioner by the issue of an appropriate notice under Exhibit P3. It is also to be noted that some evidence has been recorded during the course of the consideration of IA. No. III preferred under S. 29 (4) of the act. The respondent-tenant has not even chosen to deny the statements of petitioner and his vendor. Indeed, he has not even stepped into the witness box. In this state of affairs, it is clear that the petitioner has satisfactorily established that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between him and the tenant for the purpose of the present proceeding. ( 6 ) FOR the above reasons, this petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The order made by the learned Munsiff impugned herein, is hereby set aside. The matter will stand remitted to the Court below for' further consideration in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made herein. The petitioner is entitled to. his costs. Pleader's fee Rs. 25. 00. --- *** --- .